SIDELIGHTS  ON 
CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 


SIDELIGHTS  ON 
CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 


BY 

JAMES  ORR,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  APOLOGETICS  AND  SYSTEMATIC 
THEOLOGY  IN  THE  UNITED  FREE 
CHURCH  COLLEGE, GLASGOW 


“(JDtu  |C0rii,  one  faith,  xme  baptism,  out  dob 
anb  ^father  of  all,  toho  is  obtx  all, 
anb  ihrnnglt  all,  anb  in  all.*’ 


New  York:  A.  C.  ARMSTRONG  &  SON 
3  and  5  West  Eighteenth  Street  :  igog 


R.  \V.  SIMPSON  AND  CO.,  LTD., 
PRINTERS, 

RICHMOND,  LONDON. 


Preface 


THE  Studies  in  this  Volume  are  based  upon  Addresses 
on  Christian  Doctrine  given  at  various  Conferences 
and  Bible  Schools  in  America.  This  may  explain 
the  semi-popular  character  of  the  exposition,  and  some 
peculiarities  in  the  style,  which  it  has  not  been  thought 
necessary  to  remove.  Perhaps  the  less  formal  nature  of 
the  Studies  will  adapt  them  better  to  the  needs  of  those 
whom  technical  works  on  theology  might  repel.  The 
treatment  makes  no  pretence  at  exhaustiveness,  but 
probably  it  will  be  found  that  few  points  of  real  im¬ 
portance  in  theological  study  are  left  untouched.  The 
work  may  therefore  serve  as  an  introduction  to  more 
elaborate  handbooks  on  the  Christian  doctrines.  It  may 
serve  to  show  what,  in  substance,  theology  is,  to  create 
an  interest  in  its  questions,  and  to  remove  some  mis¬ 
conceptions  as  to  its  nature,  necessity,  and  scope.  In 
some  degree,  it  may  even  be  a  contribution  to  the  right 
apprehension  of  the  Christian  truth  itself.  These  are 
days  in  which  theology  is  at  a  discount.  The  cry  is 
loud  for  “reconstruction”  of  Christian  doctrines;  for 
re-statement  in  terms  of  living  thought.  This  book  has 
little  to  offer  in  the  way  of  novelties.  It  rests  on  the 


Preface 


conviction  that,  however  necessary  it  may  be  to  state 
Christian  doctrines  constantly  anew  in  relation  to 
advancing  knowledge,  there  is  an  essential  content  in  the 
Christian  system  which  does  not  change.  One  truth  is 
related  to  another,  and  cannot  be  essentially  altered 
without  detriment  to  the  whole  system.  There  is  a 
testimony  to  that  truth  in  the  living  organism  of  Scripture 
— held  here  to  be  the  self-attesting  record  of  God’s 
revelation  of  life  and  salvation  to  the  world — and  on  that 
Scriptural  basis,  not  on  the  changing  thoughts  and 
speculations  of  men,  a  sound  theology  must  be  reared. 
For  fuller  exhibition  and  discussion  of  the  doctrines  dealt 
with,  the  author  may  refer  to  his  special  works,  “The 
Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World  ”  (ioth  Edition), 
“  The  Progress  of  Dogma  ”  (the  history  and  development 
of  Christian  doctrine),  and  “  God’s  Image  in  Man  and  its 
Defacement  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Denials,”  with 
articles  in  Hastings’  and  other  Bible  Dictionaries. 

James  Orr. 


March ,  1909. 


Contents 


PAGE 

I.  Nature  and  Place  of  Christian  Doctrine  :  The 

Doctrine  of  God  .  .  .  .3 

II.  Names  and  Attributes  of  God  .  .  21 

III.  The  Trinity  of  God  :  The  Divine  Purpose  .  37 

IV.  Creation  and  Providence  .  .  -55 

V.  Man  and  Sin  :  Man’s  Nature  and  Original 

Condition  .  .  .  .  .75 

VI.  Man  and  Sin  :  Man’s  Need  as  a  Sinner  .  93 

VII.  Christ  and  Salvation:  General  View — The 

Redeemer  .....  109 

VIII.  Christ  and  Salvation  :  The  Atonement  .  125 

IX.  The  Spirit  in  Salvation:  Union  with  Christ 

and  its  Blessings  .  .  .  .143 

X.  Eternity  and  its  Issues  :  Advent  and  Judgment  165 

Index  of  Subjects  .  .  .181 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/sidelightsonchriOOorrj 


I 

Nature  and  Place  of 
Christian  Doctrine 
The  Doctrine  of  God 


B 


Nature  and  Place  of 
Christian  Doctrine 
The  Doctrine  of  God 

I  AM  to  speak  in  this  series  of  studies  on  some  of  the 
greater  Christian  doctrines,  and  to  try  to  set  these 
in  lights  which  may  prove  helpful  to  minds  in 
perplexity,  and  to  students  of  Scripture  who  desire,  for  its 
own  sake,  a  firmer  grasp  of  the  essentials  of  their 
Christian  faith.  At  the  outset  it  is  necessary  to  show 
that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  Christian  doctrine,  and  that 
the  study  of  it  is  a  matter  of  great  importance. 

I. 

Everyone  must  be  aware  that  there  is  at  the  present 
time  a  great  prejudice  against  doctrine — or,  as  it  is  often 
called  “  dogma  ”  —  in  religion  ;  a  great  distrust  and 
dislike  of  clear  and  systematic  thinking  about  divine 
things.  Men  prefer,  one  cannot  help  seeing,  to  live  in  a 
region  of  haze  and  indefiniteness  in  regard  to  these 
matters.  They  want  their  thinking  to  be  fluid  and 
indefinite — something  that  can  change  with  the  times, 
and  with  the  new  lights  which  they  think  are  being 
constantly  brought  to  bear  upon  it,  continually  taking  on 
new  forms,  and  leaving  the  old  behind.  They  show  a  desire 
to  get  away  from  precision  of  thought  into  a  vagueness 
and  obscurity  in  which  nothing  can  be  clearly  discerned. 

What  naturally  occurs  to  one  in  this  connection  is  that 
religion  is,  perhaps,  the  only  subject  on  which  men  feel 

3 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

in  the  way  described.  Few  people  would  regard  it  as  a 
recommendation  of  a  physician  if  he  made  it  his  boast 
that  he  was,  and  had  always  been,  very  hazy  about  his 
anatomy  and  physiology,  or  would  regard  it  as  a 
recommendation  of  an  economist  or  statesman  if  he 
professed  to  throw  behind  him  all  that  had  been  written 
or  taught  on  political  economy  and  the  science  of 
government,  and  preferred  to  be  guided  solely  by  his  own 
ideas.  This  does  not  mean  that  there  is  to  be  no 
progress  or  advance  in  any  of  these  departments  of  truth. 
But  it  does  imply  that  there  is — or  is  believed  to  be — 
a  well-ascertained  body  of  truth  in  each,  which  it  is 
imperative  for  the  student  in  that  department  to  be 
acquainted  with,  and  without  a  knowledge  of  which 
further  progress  cannot  be  made. 

Here  let  me  say  that  I  cannot  help  feeling  that, 
underlying  this  distrust  and  dislike  of  what  is  called 
“doctrine,”  there  often  lurks  a  secret  unbelief  in  the 
reality  of  any  revelation  of  God  from  which  we  can 
derive  sure  and  satisfying  knowledge  regarding  Him. 
For  it  seems  to  me  that  if  we  believe  that  there  has 
really  been  a  revelation  of  God  Himself  in  this  world — 
a  real  entering  of  God  in  word  and  deed  into  the  history 
of  man,  culminating  in  the  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  redemption  of  mankind  through  Him — if  we 
believe  that  as  a  result  of  this  revelation  we  possess  an 
assured  and  satisfying  knowledge  of  God,  of  His 
character,  of  His  will,  of  His  purposes  of  grace,  of  the 
great  hope  given  us  in  Christ,  it  must  be  felt  that  it  is 
not  only  our  privilege,  but  our  highest  duty,  to  apply 
ourselves  to  the  study  of  this  revelation,  and  to  get  out  of 
it  all  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  divine  things  it  is 
fitted  to  yield  ;  then,  when  we  have  got  it,  to  try  to  state 
the  things  we  know  as  clearly  as  we  can  to  ourselves  and 
others,  and  to  relate  them  to  one  another,  so  that  we  may 

4 


The  Doctrine  of  God 


carry  about  with  us  an  intelligible  notion  of  what  we  do 
believe,  and  are  prepared  to  testify  for. 

But  the  moment  a  man  sets  out  on  this  track  he  has 
entered  the  decried  sphere  of  what  is  called  “  theology,” 
or  the  systematic  statement  of  doctrine.  For  theology 
is  not,  as  many  suppose,  a  mere  manipulation  of  notions 
of  men’s  own  minds.  Rightly  conceived,  theology  is 
simply  the  putting  down,  as  clearly  and  accurately  as  we 
can,  all  we  know  about  God  and  divine  things  derived 
from  God’s  own  revelation  ;  the  stating  of  these  things 
and  relating  them  to  one  another  as  perfectly  as  possible ; 
and  the  consideration  with  the  best  light  available  of  the 
questions  and  difficulties  that  arise  out  of  them. 

This  suggests  a  word  of  explanation  as  to  the  more 
exact  relations  of  the  terms  which  have  been  just 
employed,  and  which  are  often  used  with  a  certain 
confusion  of  meaning  —  the  terms,  viz.,  “doctrine,” 
“  dogma,”  “theology.”  Doctrine  is  not  necessarily 
dogma,  nor  is  the  one  term,  as  is  sometimes  thought¬ 
lessly  imagined,  a  mere  synonym  for  the  other.  By 
dogma  is  properly  meant  that  statement  or  formulation  of 
doctrine  which  has  obtained  some  ecclesiastical  recogni¬ 
tion — which  is  embodied  in  some  creed,  confession,  or 
articles  of  belief.  The  statements  of  the  Apostles’  Creed, 
the  Nicene  Creed,  the  Athanasian  Creed,  e.g.,  rank  as 
dogmas.  For  the  Roman  Church,  the  Tridentine  and 
Vatican  Creeds;  for  the  Anglican  Church,  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  ;  for  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  Augsburg 
Confession  ;  for  Calvinistic  Churches,  the  Westminster 
Confession,  embody  dogmatic  findings. 

Doctrine  is  a  word  of  much  wider  signification. 
Doctrine  precedes  dogma,  and  dogma  may  have  to  be 
rectified  from  time  to  time  to  bring  it  into  closer  accord 
with  Christian  doctrine.  Doctrine  is  an  essential  element 
of  the  Biblical  religion,  in  so  far  as  this  has  a  content  of 

5 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

truth  which  admits  of  being  intelligibly  stated,  and 
makes  a  claim  on  our  belief.  Doctrines  arise  necessarily 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  religion.  It  is  sometimes 
said  that  doctrine  is  evolved  from  Christian  experience . 
But  this  is  only  a  half  truth.  Experience  is  itself  a  fact 
to  be  explained,  and  has  its  origin  in  faith  of  the  facts 
and  truths  of  the  outward  revelation.  The  true  source  of 
Christian  doctrine  is  the  revelation  of  God’s  doings  and 
will  in  Holy  Scripture,  in  conjunction  with  the  experience 
of  the  grace  of  salvation,  which  alone  can  make  doctrine 
spiritually  intelligible.  The  teacher  in  doctrine  must 
always  be  God’s  own  Holy  Spirit.  The  condition  of 
understanding  must  be  a  willingness  to  do  God’s  will 
(John  vii.  17).  Objectively,  however,  doctrine  is  already 
present  in  the  facts  of  God’s  revelation,  and  in  the  com¬ 
munications  of  His  will  to  men.  Spiritual  conditions  are 
necessary  for  the  apprehension  of  divine  truth.  But  the 
truth  must  be  there,  objectively  presented,  before  it  can 
be  appropriated. 

Theology,  as  distinguished  from  doctrine  and  dogma, 
may,  as  already  indicated,  be  described  as  the  reflective 
study  of  Christian  doctrines.  Its  possibility,  and  the 
need  of  it,  lie  in  the  fact  that  Christian  doctrines  are  not 
a  miscellany  of  unconnected  statements,  but  form  among 
themselves  a  unity  every  part  of  which  checks,  sustains, 
and  corroborates  the  other  parts.  They  flow  together  to 
form  a  whole.  This  doctrinal  content  affords  material  for 
thought.  It  is  furnished  to  the  mind  to  be  appropriated, 
reflected  on,  made  clear  to  the  intelligence,  set  forth  in 
its  various  relations  and  connections.  It  embodies  itself 
in  forms  of  sound  words  (2  Tim.  i.  13).  In  a  wider 
respect,  it  is  the  function  of  theology  to  set  in  order, 
systematise,  relate  the  doctrines  of  Scripture  ;  to  give 
them  suitable  expression  ;  as  far  as  may  be,  to  elucidate 
their  difficulties ;  to  do  for  them,  in  short,  what  botany 

6 


The  Doctrine  of  God 


does  for  the  facts  and  laws  of  plant  life,  or  astronomy  for 
the  facts  and  laws  of  the  starry  heavens.  Within  its 
proper  limits  it  is  as  legitimate  a  branch  of  science  as  any 
of  the  others :  the  science  of  divine  things. 

It  follows  from  what  has  now  been  said  that,  if  we 
think  about  the  truths  of  God’s  revelation  at  all,  we 
cannot  get  rid  of  doctrine  and  theology,  and  it  is  a  vain 
pretence  of  anyone  to  boast  that  he  does.  In  public 
life  one  is  familiar  with  the  species  known  as  the  “  non¬ 
political  ”  candidate.  But  what  one  generally  soon 
discovers  is,  that  the  difference  between  this  kind  of 
candidate  and  his  neighbours  is  not  that  he  has  no 
politics,  but  that  they  are  confused  and  bad  politics. 
Similarly,  when  people  go  about  boasting  that  they  have 
no  theology,  what  is  commonly  found  out  about  them 
is  not  that  they  have  no  theology,  but  that  they  have  a 
spurious  or  bad  theology — a  theology  concocted  from 
incoherent  elements  gathered  in  from  all  directions,  with 
often  a  very  scant  use  of  the  Bible.  Too  frequently  it  is 
a  crude,  superficial  dilettante  kind  of  thing,  made  up 
from  ideas  and  elements  collected  from  every  quarter — a 
scrap  from  Hegel,  an  echo  from  Spencer,  a  fact  from 
Darwin — all  stuck  over  with  terms  of  science,  philosophy 
and  criticism  ;  and  this  is  served  up  as  something  newer 
and  better  than  the  old  faith.  Anyone,  certainly,  is  at 
liberty  to  make  his  own  theology,  if  he  wants  to  do  it. 
It  is  well  also  to  be  open  to  new  light,  always  looking  for 
it,  glad  to  use  it.  But  as  regards  the  great  staple 
doctrines  of  the  revelation  of  God,  it  must  be  held  that 
the  ground  of  these  is  firmly  laid  in  Scripture  itself,  and 
it  is  on  that  basis,  not  on  human  theories  and  specu¬ 
lations,  we  must  build,  if  we  are  to  rear  the  structure  of 
a  truly  Christian  theology. 


7 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

ii. 

These  remarks  on  the  necessity  and  place  of  doctrine 
in  the  Christian  religion  will  best  receive  illustration 
from  the  subject  it  is  now  proposed  to  consider — the 
doctrine  of  God.  The  doctrine  of  God,  it  need  scarcely 
be  said,  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  right  thinking  in 
religion.  In  strictness,  theology  is  just  the  doctrine  of 
God.  That  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  God  is  the 
Alpha  and  Omega  of  theological  study,  for  as  a  man 
thinks  about  his  God  so  will  his  theology  be  all  through. 
It  is  not  too  strongto  say  that,  in  principle,  every  question 
of  importance  which  arises  in  theology  is  already  prac¬ 
tically  settled  in  the  doctrine  of  God  and  His  attributes. 
So  essential  is  it  to  begin  with  Scripturally  right  thoughts 
about  God. 

The  doctrine  of  God  furnishes  us  with  proof  of  the  need 
of  theology  and  the  impossibility  of  getting  away  from  it. 
For  the  first  thing  evidently  we  have  to  do  when  we 
speak  of  a  doctrine  of  God  is  to  say  what  we  mean  by 
God.  What  do  you  mean  by  this  term  God  ?  This  is  a 
fair  question  to  ask  any  man  who  uses  the  word,  and  the 
instant  you  begin  to  answer  that  question,  you  begin  to 
make  statements  which  belong  to  theology. 

Thus,  there  are  those  who  call  themselves  Atheists — 
who  say  boldly  that  there  is  no  God.  You  pull  yourself 
together,  and  make  the  counter-assertion,  “Yes,  there  is  a 
God.”  Well,  there  is  already  a  definite  assertion,  and 
the  opponent  is  quite  entitled  to  turn  round  and  say  : 
“  Do  you  know  what  you  mean  when  you  make  that 
statement  ?”  If  you  try  to  tell  him,  you  are  taking  a  first 
great  step  into  theology. 

There  were  those  in  the  old  religions  who  believed,  and 
there  still  are  millions  in  the  world  who  believe,  that  there 
are  many  gods — Polytheists,  we  call  them.  As  Christians, 

8 


The  Doctrine  of  God 


we  declare  that  there  is  one  God.  “  Hear,  O  Israel :  the 
Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord  ”  (Deut.  vi.  4).  “  Thou 

believest  that  God  is  one”  (Jas.  ii.  19).  We  proclaim 
the  unity  of  God  ;  and  in  making  this  affirmation  against 
polytheism  we  are  laying  down  a  great  basal  proposition 
in  theology — one,  too,  it  can  be  confidently  said,  in  which 
we  have  with  us  the  best  modern  thought  and  science. 
There  is  no  one  almost  who  believes  in  God  in  any  sense 
who  would  now  deny  His  unity.  It  is  a  cardinal  axiom 
of  modern  science  that  the  system  of  things  which 
constitute  the  universe — therefore  the  Power  to  which 
it  owes  its  origin — is  one. 

Well,  but  you  find  another  class  of  people  who  say: 
“  Yes,  there  is  a  great  Power,  a  great,  inscrutable  Power, 
in  the  universe,  which  manifests  itself  in  all  that  is”; 
but  then  they  deny  the  distinction  between  the  world 
and  God.  God  and  the  world,  they  tell  you,  are  not 
really  distinct.  God’s  life  is  just  the  life  He  has  in  the 
world.  His  life  is  merged  in  the  life  of  the  world.  He 
is  the  soul,  the  essence,  the  substance  of  the  world.  The 
world  is  the  manifestation  of  God,  and  His  sole  manifesta¬ 
tion.  He  has  no  personal  life  of  His  own.  We  call 
these  people  Pantheists,  because  they  say  that  God  is 
all. 

But  we,  as  Christians,  come  with  a  contrary  affirmation. 
We  say  :  “  No  ;  it  is  true  that  God  is  in  the  world  ;  is  its 
Author,  Creator,  Upholder;  is  in  everything  in  a  way 
which  nothing  else  can  be.  But  nevertheless,  God’s  life 
is  not  merely  in  the  world.  He  has  also  a  Personal 
existence  above  the  world.”  He  is  in  all  things,  and 
through  all  things,  but  He  is  also  above  all  things.  He 
has  given  rise  to  the  world  by  a  free  creative  act  of  His 
will;  but  He  Himself  is  above  the  world  in  His  trans¬ 
cendent  Being,  eternally  possessing  Himself  in  the  fulness 
of  His  own  Self-conscious  life.  In  making  these  affirma- 

9 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

tions  we  have  separated  ourselves  from  Pantheism,  and 
are  building  up  a  theology  about  God. 

It-  is  the  same  when  we  come  to  the  more  specific 
affirmations  about  God.  There  have  been  those  who  said 
that  God  had  a  beginning,  an  origin  in  time  ;  that  He  was 
localised  in  space.  There  have  been  those  who  said — 
some  do  say  it  still — that  God  is  a  Being  who  is  limited 
in  His  wisdom,  His  knowledge,  and  His  power.  There 
are  those  who  would  limit  God  in  various  ways,  pointing 
to  the  seeming  imperfections  of  the  world  in  proof.  But 
we  Christians  believe  that  God  is  infinite  in  all  His 
perfections.  We  not  only  deny  these  limitations  of  God, 
but  we  put  in  their  place  the  opposite  affirmations.  We 
say,  “  God  is  eternal,  is  all-powerful,  is  all-knowing,  is 
all-loving.”  We  could  not  believe  in  a  God  who  was  not 
infinite  in  all  these  respects.  When  we  name  God,  we 
mean  just  a  Being  who  has  these  perfections.  We  go 
further,  and  say  that,  if  God  had  not  these  perfections, 
He  would  not  be  God. 

This,  let  me  say  in  passing,  is  one  reason  why  it  is  not 
strictly  correct  to  speak,  as  we  sometimes  do,  of  the  being 
of  a  God,  or  of  belief  in  a  God.  It  is  not  uncommon  to 
see  the  question  stated  in  discussion  :  “  Is  there  a  God  ?  ” 
It  is  asked  :  “  Do  you  believe  in  a  God  ?  ”  or  “  Can  you 
prove  the  existence  of  a  God  ?  ”  Popularly  and  pro¬ 
visionally,  such  language  is  permissible.  Strictly,  it  is 
not  correct,  because,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  there  can 
be  but  one  God.  There  is  of  necessity  but  one  infinite, 
eternal,  perfect  Being.  God  cannot  be  thought  of  as  one 
of  a  class,  or  as  belonging  to  a  class  in  any  way.  If  God 
is,  there  is  none  beside  Him.  “  I  am  God,  and  there  is 
none  else”  (Is.  xlvi.  9). 

To  take  only  one  illustration  more.  There  are  those 
who  say  :  “  Yes,  there  is  this  Power  in  the  world, 
working  through  all  things,  but  then  He  is  so  great,  so 

10 


The  Doctrine  of  God 


vast,  so  infinite,  that  we  cannot  know  Him.”  Our 
faculties  are  finite.  There  is  in  our  minds  an 
inherent  incapacity  to  know  a  Being  who  is  infinite, 
absolute — as  philosophy  would  say,  “  unconditioned.” 
This  phase  of  denial  is  called  Agnosticism.  The  late 
Herbert  Spencer  was  a  representative'  of  it.  Now  we 
either  believe  this,  or  we  do  not.  If  we  believe  it, 
theology,  of  course,  is  at  an  end.  But  then  we  are  not 
called  upon  to  believe  it.  As  Christians,  we  all  do 
acknowledge  that  God  is  in  infinite  ways  incomprehensible 
by  finite  minds.  We  acknowledge  that  God  is  in  the 
depths  of  His  absolute  Being  beyond  our  ken  ;  that  all 
we  can  ever  know  of  Him  is  little  compared  with  what 
we  do  not  know.  “  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out 
God?”  (Job  xi.  7).  His  judgments  are  unsearchable; 
His  ways  past  tracing  out  (Rom.  xi.  33 ;  cj.  Is.  xl. 
28).  But  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying 
that  God  cannot  be  known  by  us  at  all,  or,  as  some 
would  have  it,  can  be  known  only  in  dim  and  indefinite 
symbol.  We  may  not  know  God  in  the  depths  of  His 
absolute  Being.  But  we  can  at  least  know  Him  in  so 
far  as  He  reveals  Himself  in  His  relations  to  us.  The 
question,  therefore,  is  not  as  to  the  possibility  of  a  know¬ 
ledge  of  God  in  the  unfathomableness  of  His  Being,  but 
is :  Can  we  know  God  as  He  enters  into  relations  with 
the  world  and  with  ourselves  ?  God  has  entered  into 
relations  with  us  in  His  revelations  of  Himself,  and 
supremely  in  Jesus  Christ;  and  we  Christians  humbly 
claim  that  through  this  Self-revelation  we  do  know  God 
to  be  the  true  God,  and  have  a  real  acquaintance  with 
His  character  and  will.  Neither  is  it  correct  to  say  that 
this  knowledge  which  we  have  of  God  is  only  a  relative 
knowledge.  It  is  in  part  a  knowledge  of  the  absolute  nature 
of  God  as  well.  The  relations  in  which  God  stands  to  us 
— the  revelations  He  makes  to  us — reveal  something  of 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

what  He  is  truly.  In  the  statement,  e.g.,  “  God  is  love  ” 
(i  John  iv.  8,  16),  we  are  affirming  the  most  absolute 
possible  about  God  ! 

III. 

If  this  is  what  we  mean  by  God,  the  question  which 
next  arises  is  as  to  the  evidence  we  have  for  God.  It  will 
not  be  expected  that  I  should  enter  here  into  any  elaborate 
proof  of  the  existence  of  God.  We  are  a  stage  beyond 
that.  If  we  look  to  the  Bible,  we  must  be  struck  by  the 
fact  that  it  never  lays  itself  out  to  prove  the  existence  of 
God  at  all.  It  takes  His  existence  for  granted ;  takes  His 
presence  in  all  things,  His  power,  His  providence,  for 
granted. 

But  the  reason  for  this  is,  not  that  the  existence  of 
God  is  not  a  reasonable  thing ;  not  that  there  is  not 
ample  evidence  of  God’s  presence  and  power.  The 
opposite  is  the  case.  From  the  Bible’s  standpoint, 
God’s  existence  is  so  reasonable  that  only  the  most 
foolish,  the  most  brutish,  can  deny  it  (Ps.  xiv.  i). 
God’s  existence  is  so  manifest,  so  pressed  upon  us  by 
everything  around  us  ;  God  has  revealed  Himself  to  us  in 
so  many  ways,  that  formal  proof  of  His  existence  is  not 
called  for.  As  Paul  tells  us  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Romans :  “  The  invisible  things  of  Him  since  the 
creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  perceived 
through  the  things  that  are  made,  even  His  everlasting 
power  and  divinity  ;  that  they  may  be  without  excuse  ” 
(Rom.  i.  20).  This  is  God’s  natural  revelation  (Ps.  xix. 
1).  In  His  more  special  revelation  God  has  revealed 
Himself  to  the  people  of  Israel  by  His  mighty  words  and 
deeds  in  their  history  in  such  a  way  that  the  raising  of 
the  question  of  His  existence  was  not  so  much  as  to  be 
thought  of. 

If  we  are  to  speak  of  reason  in  relation  to  belief  in 

12 


The  Doctrine  of  God 


God — and  this  is  all  I  here  propose  to  say  on  this  subject 
— I  would  observe  that  there  are  just  two  grand  pillars 
for  belief  in  God  on  the  ground  of  reason.  The  first  is 
what  I  would  call  the  rationality  of  the  universe ,  and  the 
second  is  the  reality  of  the  moral  world. 

1.  When  I  speak  of  the  rationality  of  the  universe  as  a 
ground  for  belief  in  God,  I  mean  simply  that,  if  this 
universe  is,  as  we  know  it  to  be,  rationally  constituted, 
then,  as  thinking  beings,  we  cannot  do  otherwise  than 
put  reason  behind  it,  and  explain  it  through  reason. 
Least  of  all  in  these  modern  days  can  we  do  otherwise. 
This,  at  anv  rate,  is  a  debt  we  owe  to  science.  Science 
is  a  splendid  demonstration  of  the  rationality  of  the 
existing  world.  The  work  of  science  is  to  construe  the 
world  as  presented  to  our  senses  in  terms  of  reason ;  and 
this  a  reason  analogous  to  our  own,  else  the  apprehension 
of  it  would  not  be  possible  to  us.  The  point  is  that 
science  can  spell  out  this  world — the  meaning  of  it — in 
terms  that  our  intelligence  can  take  in.  The  fact  that 
science  can  do  this  shows  that  the  world  is  constructed 
by  an  intelligence  analogous  to  our  own.  Take  an 
illustration.  You  open  a  French  book.  If  you  do  not 
understand  French,  you  cannot  read  it.  You  open 
another  book  in  some  language  you  do  understand,  and 
find  you  can  read  it.  Why  ?  Because  the  thought  of 
the  author  is  working  in  forms  of  language  with  which 
you  are  acquainted.  So  the  fact  that  you  can  read  this 
book  of  the  world  shows  that  the  reason  which  planned 
it  is  a  reason  in  kinship  with  our  own.  This  brings  us 
back  to  rationality  in  the  universe.  It  brings  us  back 
also  to  personality.  For  rationality,  as  I  take  it,  implies 
personality — is  meaningless  without  a  personal  mind.  It 
therefore  brings  us  back  to  God. 

2.  Still,  it  may  be  urged,  this  does  not  give  us  moral 
intelligence.  It  may  be  granted  that  it  does  not.  I 

13 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

believe,  indeed,  that  rationality  and  morality  are  at 
bottom  one  ;  for  a  personal  intelligence  cannot  think 
rationally  on  conduct  without  perceiving  that  there  are 
certain  lines  of  action  which  for  it  would  be  right,  and 
certain  lines  of  action  which  for  it  would  be  wrong.  But 
apart  from  this  we  have  direct  consciousness  within  our¬ 
selves  of  the  reality  of  moral  law,  and  of  moral  ends, 
which  carry  with  them  the  guarantee  of  an  absolute 
worth.  As  reasonable  beings,  we  not  only  conceive 
ideas,  but  set  before  us  ends .  Some  of  these  ends  have 
only  relative  worth.  They  exist  for  other  ends.  But 
there  are  ends  which,  in  distinction  from  these,  have  an 
absolute  worth.  Such  are  the  ends  of  goodness.  These 
are  presented  to  us  with  an  absolute  obligation.  We 
have  no  liberty  to  set  them  aside.  Interpreting  the 
world  from  this  standpoint,  and  asking:  “  For  what  end 
does  the  world  exist  ?  ”  we  have  no  alternative,  without 
renouncing  our  moral  nature,  but  to  answer:  “The  end 
in  the  last  instance  must  be  a  moral  one.”  We  must, 
with  the  philosopher  Kant,  affirm  that  the  world  exists 
for  the  sake  of  the  Good — for  the  sake  of  a  kingdom  of 
the  Good,  or  kingdom  of  God.  We  must,  in  other 
words,  regard  it  as  a  moral  system,  and  God,  the  Author 
of  it,  as  a  Moral  Being.  So  firmly  established,  in  fact, 
is  this  as  part  of  our  belief  in  God,  that  it  is  now 
impossible  for  us  to  entertain  any  lower  idea  of  God. 
God  means  for  us  a  Being  of  ethical  perfection,  or 
nothing  at  all.  The  very  atheist  would  scoff,  and  turn 
the  fact  to  our  confusion,  if  we  set  up  for  worship  a  Being 
morally  distorted  and  imperfect. 

IV. 

From  this  teaching,  which  comes  to  us  so  far  from 
reason,  we  turn  again  to  the  Bible.  The  Bible  does  not, 
as  has  just  been  said,  seek  to  prove  the  existence  of  God ; 

14 


The  Doctrine  of  God 


but,  in  studying  its  pages,  we  find  that,  in  its  idea  of 
God,  it  takes  up  all  these  truths  of  reason  about  God, 
and  carries  them  a  great  deal  further.  The  Bible  does 
not  seek  to  prove  that  God  is  one,  eternal,  infinite  ;  is 
all-powerful,  all-knowing,  all-present,  all-wise,  all-holy. 
But  it  takes  all  this  for  granted  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
in  the  New,  and  makes  the  truth  continually  felt  in  its 
teachings.  I  know  that  at  the  present  time  this  is 
widely  challenged  as  regards  the  earlier  parts  of  the 
Bible.  There  are  those  who  say  that  this  high  idea  of 
God  is  found  when  you  come  to  the  prophetic  teaching, 
but  that  you  do  not  find  it  before.  In  the  earlier  periods 
God  is  apprehended  as  a  “  tribal  ”  or  “  national  ”  deity 
only.  I  do  not  believe  this.  Elsewhere  I  have  ventured 
to  say,  and  would  now  repeat,  that  I  do  not  know  a 
single  fact  on  which  the  critic  can  legitimately  lay  his 
finger  to  show  that  at  any  time  Israel  did  not  believe  in 
one  God,  who  was  the  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth.  You 
find  this  in  the  earliest  portions  of  the  Bible,  as  well  as 
in  the  latest — in  those  parts  which  even  the  critics  will 
allow  to  be  the  oldest.  In  these  earliest  parts  you  find 
such  ideas  as  the  creation  of  the  world  by  God,  the 
creation  of  a  first  human  pair,  the  judgment  of  the  whole 
world  by  a  flood,  a  covenant  made  with  Noah  for  the 
whole  earth — all  implying  that  unity  of  God,  and  lord- 
ship  over  the  whole  earth,  which  belong  to  monotheism  . 
The  Book  of  Genesis  is  in  all  its  parts  a  monotheistic 
book.  No  other  God  is  even  hinted  at. 

The  Bible  from  the  beginning  thus  takes  up  the  highest 
truth  of  reason  into  its  teaching  about  God.  Jesus,  in 
turn,  takes  up  all  the  teaching  both  of  nature  and  of  the 
Old  Testament  into  His  revelation  of  God.  But  alike 
in  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  the  truth  about  God  is 
carried  far  higher  than  ever  reason  could  attain.  New 
light  is  cast  on  God’s  attributes  by  the  discovery  of  them 

15 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

made  in  His  dealings  with  man  and  with  man’s  sin — 
dealings  both  in  mercy  and  in  judgment  ;  by  His  spoken 
words;  by  His  commands,  promises,  and  threatenings  ; 
by  prophecies ;  finally,  by  the  coming  of  the  promised 
Redeemer,  and  the  work  of  salvation  accomplished 
through  Him.  From  the  whole  emerges  an  infinitely 
richer,  fuller,  holier,  more  gracious  conception  of  God 
than  mere  reason  could  ever  have  reached — a  conception, 
too,  stamped  with  a  certainty  which  the  deductions  of 
reason  do  not  possess.  It  is  this  full  Biblical  conception 
of  God,  with  all  that  it  involves,  which  is  the  proper 
subject-matter  of  Christian  theology. 

If  now  it  be  asked  :  What  is  the  specific,  the  peculiar, 
the  distinctively  characteristic  thing  in  the  Christian 
idea  of  God  ?  the  answer  I  should  be  disposed  to  give 
would  be :  It  is  found  in  the  revelation  of  God  as  triune , 
or  in  His  three-fold  name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit.  Here,  I  know,  I  touch  delicate  and  difficult 
ground.  Many  will  demur  and  say :  It  is  God’s  Father¬ 
hood  simply  which  is  the  distinctive  thing  in  the 
Christian  conception  of  God.  Christ’s  dearest  and  most 
special  name  for  God  was  “  Father.”  “  Holy  Father,” 
He  prayed  (John  xvii.  n).  This  is  true  ;  only,  I  would 
also  remark,  the  Fatherhood  of  God  in  the  New 
Testament  is  never  revealed  as  a  thing  by  itself;  it  is 
revealed  always  in  relation  with  the  Son  and  Spirit. 
Christ  Himself  has  His  place  as  Son  in  our  idea  of  the 
Godhead.  The  Spirit  surely  has  His  place.  It  is  the 
thought  of  God  as  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  which  is  the 
complete  thought  of  God  in  our  redemption. 

The  Trinity  of  God  will  be  considered  in  another 
paper.  At  present  a  word  may  be  permitted  in  closing 
on  this  subject  of  God's  Fatherhood.  The  full  Scriptural 
depth  of  this  conception  is  not  always  realized  ;  hence 
the  mistakes  into  which  people  fall  regarding  it.  The 

16 


The  Doctrine  of  God 


Fatherhood  of  God,  in  the  full  Christian  idea  of  it,  does 
not  originate  with  God’s  relation  to  the  world,  or  to 
man ;  or  even  with  God’s  relation  to  believers.  God 
was  Father  before  He  had  relation  either  to  the  world 
or  to  believers.  He  is  Father  in  Himself — “  the  Father 
everlasting.”  This  again  implies  the  triune  conception. 
If  you  wish  to  find  the  ultimate  spring  of  Fatherhood  in 
the  heart  of  God,  you  must  seek  it,  not  in  relation  to 
humanity,  or  to  believers,  but  in  the  relation  to  the 
Eternal  and  “only-begotten”  Son  (John  i.  18).  It  is 
with  this  Fatherly  love,  of  which  the  primal  object  is 
the  Son,  that  God  turns  to  the  world,  and  seeks  to  draw 
men  in  to  be  sharers  of  it. 

We  here  find  the  true  answer  to  the  difficulties  raised 
about  the  “  universal  ”  and  “special”  Fatherhood  of  God. 
Is  God  universally  Father  ?  Is  man,  by  creation,  a  son  ? 
In  one  sense,  as  will  be  seen  later,  when  God  created 
man,  it  was  to  a  destiny  of  sonship.  Man  was  made  in  God’s 
image  (Gen.  i.  27).  He  was  designed  for  free,  loving, 
blessed  fellowship  with  God ;  was  intended  to  possess 
and  manifest  the  filial  spirit.  So  far  the  advocates  of 
universal  Fatherhood  are  right.  The  sinner  in  conversion 
is  truly  a  prodigal  returning  to  his  Father’s  house  (Luke 
xv.  18).  But  man  by  sin  turned  his  back  on  that 
destiny.  He  took  another  spirit  into  his  heart ;  passed 
into  another  relation  to  God  than  that  of  a  son  to  a 
Father.  If  his  destiny  of  sonship  was  to  be  realized,  it 
could  no  longer  be  on  the  basis  of  creation,  but  only  on 
the  basis  of  redemption.  Hence  the  restriction  of  sonship 
in  the  Gospel  to  those  who  are  actually  partakers  of  the 
grace  of  Christ’s  salvation.  Sonship,  in  grace,  becomes 
ours  by  regeneration  and  a  divine  act  of  “  adoption.”* 

It  is  no  more  a  thing  of  more  nature — of  creation.  For 
the  same  reason  it  is  no  longer  merely  the  carrying 

*  See  p.  22. 


*7 


G 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

through  of  the  sonship  designed  for  man  in  his  creation, 
but  is  something  infinitely  higher.  It  is  something 
which  only  those  in  union  with  Christ  can  possess. 
God,  in  the  Gospel,  is  “  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.” 


18 


II 

Names  and 
Attributes  of  God 


Names  and 

Attributes  of  God 


IT  was  remarked  in  the  preceding  study  that  there  is 
hardly  any  problem  in  theology  which  is  not 
already  settled  in  principle  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  attributes.  A  general  indication  of  the  nature  of 
these  attributes — God’s  unity,  eternity,  infinity,  omni¬ 
potence,  &c. — was  given  in  defining  the  Christian  idea  of 
God.  Many  of  the  attributes,  however,  raise  questions 
and  involve  difficulties  on  which  it  is  necessary  to  en¬ 
deavour  to  cast  a  little  light.  This  will  form  a  transition 
to  the  consideration  of  the  deeply  interesting  subject  of 
the  Trinity  of  God’s  Being. 

I. 

As  introductory  to  both  subjects,  a  few  words  may 
be  said,  first,  on  the  Names  of  God  in  Scripture.  We 
often  read  in  the  Bible  of  the  divine  “  name.”  “  What 
is  Thy  name  ?  ”  asked  Jacob  of  the  Angel  that  wrestled 
with  him  (Gen.  xxxii.  27).  “How  excellent  is  Thy  name 
in  all  the  earth,”  sings  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  viii.  1).  “  Thou 
shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain,” 
reads  the  third  commandment  (Ex.  xx.  7).  The  thing  to 
be  chiefly  borne  in  mind  here  is  the  close  connection  in 
Scripture  usage,  as  in  ancient  thought  generally,  between 
“  name  ”  and  “  essence.”  A  name  is  never  a  mere  vocable. 


21 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

It  expresses  the  nature.  In  heathen  belief,  to  use  the 
names  of  the  gods  in  incantations  (magic)  was  to  possess 
power  over  the  gods.  In  the  Bible,  likewise,  the  “  name  ” 
of  God  is  the  expression  of  His  nature  and  character.  It 
is  that  in  which  the  fulness  of  His  character  and  attributes, 
especially  in  His  relations  to  man,  is  revealed.  It  has 
been  described  as  “the  revealed  side  of  His  nature.” 
There  are  general  names  of  God ;  but,  besides,  there  are 
particular  names  arising  out  of  special  providential 
interpositions  (e.g.,  “  Jehovah-Jireh,”  Gen.  xxii.  14; 
“  Jehovah-Nissi,”  Ex.  xvii.  15).  The  general  names  of 
God  reflect  also  the  stages  of  the  divine  revelation. 

The  most  general  designations  of  God  —  those, 
accordingly,  chiefly  characteristic  of  the  patriarchal  age 
— are  El,  El  Elyon,  El  Shaddai ,  but  specially  Elohim.  The 
last  is  the  word  translated  “  God  ”  in  our  versions.  Of 
these  names,  El  and  Elohim  have  (as  ordinarily  taken) 
the  root-idea  of  “  power,”  El  (Babylonian  Ilu)  is  a 
common  Semitic  designation  for  God.  In  Genesis  it  is 
found  only  in  the  composition  of  proper  names  (e.g., 
Bethel),  or  in  combination  with  an  attribute  (e.g.,  Gen. 
xxi.  33,  “  El  Olam,”  the  everlasting  God).  The  early 
name  El  Shaddai  is  likewise  connected  with  the  idea  of 
power  (“  God  Almighty,”  Gen.  xvii.  1  :  Ex.  vi.  1),  but  of 
power  as  specifically  exercised  within  the  sphere  of 
revelation.  It  denotes  the  God  who  reveals  Himself  in 
deeds  of  omnipotence  for  the  ends  of  His  kingdom 
(promise  of  Isaac  ;  a  numberless  seed  to  Abraham).  El 
Elyon,  found  in  Gen.  xiv. — a  section  by  itself — has  the 
sense  of  “  Most  High  God  ”  (also  in  Phoenicia). 

The  usual  name  for  God  in  the  Old  Testament,  how¬ 
ever,  in  His  general  aspect  of  Creator  and  Ruler  of  the 
world — the  God  of  Creation  and  Providence — is  Elohim . 
It  is  a  plural  form  peculiar  to  Scripture,  but  though 
plural  is  used,  when  applied  to  the  true  God,  with  a 

22 


Names  and  Attributes  of  God 


singular  verb.  It  is  customary  to  explain  this  plural 
form  as  a  plural  of  majesty,  and  no  doubt  it  has  this 
significance.  But  there  is  more  than  majesty  implied  in 
it.  The  name  denotes  at  least  the  possession  by  the  God  of 
Israel  of  all  that  fulness  of  powers  which  heathen  peoples 
distributed  out  among  their  several  deities.  It  suggests, 
too,  the  idea  of  plurality,  which,  as  will  be  seen  after,  lies 
from  the  beginning  in  the  Biblical  idea  of  God. 

Higher  in  rank,  and  peculiar  in  sacredness,  is  the 
covenant  name,  Jehovah  (or  Jahveh),  which  is  the  Personal 
name  of  the  God  of  Israel.  Though  in  itself  an  old  name 
(scholars  allege  traces  of  it  in  ancient  Babylonia),  it  is 
specially  connected  in  Scripture  with  the  revelation  of 
God  to  Moses  at  the  Exodus  (Ex.  iii.  13-15;  vi.  2,  3),  and 
with  the  display  of  His  faithfulness,  grace,  and  power  at 
that  time.  The  form  “  Jehovah  ”  is  quite  a  modern  one 
(it  came  into  use  in  the  sixteenth  century).  It  represents 
the  consonants  of  the  sacred  name,  with  the  vowels  of 
the  word  “  Adonai  ”  (Lord),  which  the  Jews  used  to 
avoid  pronouncing  the  holier  name.  The  word  itself 
(JHVH)  is  derived  from  the  imperfect  of  an  old  form 
of  the  verb  “  to  be,”  and  is  properly  explained,  as  in 
Exodus,  “I  Am  that  I  Am,”  or  in  the  third  person, 
“  He  is  that  He  is.”  It  denotes  God  as  the  One  who, 
in  absolute  freedom  and  independence,  is  always  in 
agreement  with  Himself — the  Self-existent,  and  there¬ 
fore  the  Self -consistent  One.  The  scholar  Kautzsch 
gives  the  meaning:  “Constant  and  eternal.”  Besides 
covenant-keeping  faithfulness,  there  lies  in  it  the  idea 
of  unchangeableness:  “I  am  Jehovah  ;  I  change  not” 
(Mai.  iii.  6). 

Attention  to  the  meaning  of  these  names  will  be  found 
to  solve  many  of  the  difficulties  which  have  been  raised 
as  to  their  uses  in  Scripture. 


23 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

ii. 

Turning  now  to  the  divine  Attributes,  we  have 
found  that  most  of  these  attributes — unity,  power, 
eternity,  unchangeableness,  &c. — are  already  implied  in 
the  signification  of  the  divine  names.  But  a  nearer 
study  is  desirable. 

By  attributes  of  God  are  meant,  not  anything  distinct 
from  God  Himself,  or  divisions  of  His  essence,  but 
simply  those  determinations  of  His  Being  and  character 
which  are  implied  in  His  relations  to  the  world  and  man, 
and  which  our  thought  must  distinguish,  without  imply¬ 
ing  that  they  are  really  separable  from  Him  or  from  one 
another.  The  attributes  have  been  conveniently  dis¬ 
tinguished  as  natural  and  moral.  A  mere  philosophical 
distinction  is  into  those  which  belong  generally  to  God’s 
Being  as  the  Absolute  One  (Self-existence,  eternity, 
infinity,  and  the  like)  ;  those  which  belong  to  His 
Being  as  Personal  (spirituality,  Personality,  freedom)  ; 
and  the  Specific  attributes,  divided,  as  before,  into  natural 
and  moral. 

Let  no  one  take  fright  at  the  word  A  bsolute  as 
applied  to  God.  When  philosophy  speaks  of  God  as 
the  absolute  One,  it  means  only  what  Scripture  every¬ 
where  implies,  viz.,  that  God’s  is  that  existence  which, 
unlike  every  other,  is  in  and  of  itself,  is  dependent  solely 
on  itself,  gives  its  being  and  law  to  all  other  existence, 
but  itself  is  conditioned  by  none.  God  is  one,  sole,  living 
Self-existent  sovereign  (Ps.  cxxxv.  6;  Dan.  iv.  35).  God 
as  the  absolute  One,  is  sovereign,  but  care  must  be  taken 
not  to  attach  false  ideas  to  this  much-abused  term.  The 
sovereignty  of  God  does  not  mean  that  the  will  of  God  is 
an  arbitrary  will  (even  Calvin  declares  that  God  is 
not  exlex ),  but  that  it  is  a  will  self-determined — not 
prescribed  to  or  controlled  from  without — a  will  which 
has  its  last  grounds  of  acting  in  itself  (Eph.  i.  9,  11). 

24 


Names  and  Attributes  of  God 


1.  Self -existence,  which  we  attribute  to  God  in  this 
connection,  is  not  a  thought  which  it  is  left  to  our  own 
choice  to  form.  We  cannot  admit  existence  at  all  with¬ 
out  being  compelled  to  go  back  finally  on  some  uncaused, 
necessary,  Self-existent  Being.  God,  for  our  faith  is  that 
Being.  He  is  unoriginated,  uncaused,  Self-existent, 
necessary.  Scripture  constantly  assumes  this  to  be 
true  of  God.  It  never  thinks  of  God  as  the  Babylonians 
thought  of  their  deities,  as  having  been  “  born,”  or 
having  had  a  beginning.  On  the  other  hand,  He  is  the 
free  Creator  and  Disposer  of  all  that  exists.  He  must, 
therefore,  as  Christ  says,  have  “life  in  Himself”  (John 
v.  26). 

2.  This  first  truth  about  God  involves  others.  For, 
plainly,  the  S<?//-existent  One  must  be  the  ever- existent 
— the  eternal.  The  Author  and  Disposer  of  all  things  can 
be  limited  by  nothing  beyond  Himself — save  as  He  Him¬ 
self  establishes  the  limits — therefore  must  be  unlimited, 
or  infinite.  Infinity  as  an  abstract  idea  the  Bible  writers 
perhaps  did  not  entertain  ;  but  it  is  obvious  from  their 
teachings  that  the  perfections  of  God  had  no  limits  set  to 
them  in  their  thoughts.  Still,  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
we  are  here  in  presence  of  great  mysteries,  and  that  in 
attributing  eternity  and  infinity  to  God,  we  employ 
terms  which  largely  outreach  our  means  of  positive  con¬ 
ception,  and  drive  us  back  upon  the  use  of  symbols. 

(1)  The  form  in  which  the  Scripture  represents  God’s 
eternity  to  us  is  that  of  duration  through  endless  ages. 
“  From  everlasting  to  everlasting  [literally,  from  age  to 
age],  Thou  art  God  ”  (Ps.  xc.  2).  In  the  New  Testament 
we  have  “unto  the  ages  of  the  ages  ”  (Eph.  iii.  20,  &c.). 
Ordinarily  we  think  of  God’s  eternity  in  the  same 
manner,  as  duration  infinitely  prolonged  in  the  two 
directions  of  time — backwards  and  forwards.  Yet  this 
is  only  a  symbol  for  what  really  transcends  time.  Time, 

25 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

strictly,  has  relation  to  a  world  of  objects  existing  in 
succession.  God  fills  time;  is  in  every  part  of  it ;  but 

His  eternity  still  is  not  really  this  being  in  time.  It  is 
rather  that  to  which  being  in  time  forms  a  contrast. 
Here  thought  fails.  This  relation  of  the  eternity  of  God 
to  time  is,  in  truth,  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  in 
theology ;  probably  with  our  present  faculties  an  insoluble 
one. 

(2)  It  is  not  otherwise  with  infinity.  The  symbol  here 
usually  employed  is  boundlessness — a  quantitative  concep¬ 
tion.  When  reflection  is  applied  to  the  subject,  however, 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  there  can  never  be  a  realised  quanti¬ 
tative  infinitude.  If  it  ever  was  realised  it  would  not 
be  infinite.  The  infinitude  of  number,  e.g.,  does  not  lie 
in  an  infinite  series  ever  being  realised,  but  in  the 
potentiality  in  number  of  going  on  for  ever.  Omnipotence 
in  God  does  not  mean  an  absolute  quantum  of  power,  but 
an  exhaustless  potency  of  power — a  possibility  in  the 
exercise  of  power  to  which  no  limits  can  be  set ;  a  power 
which  can  do  everything  which  is  a  possibility  of  power, 
and  that  endlessly.  This  is  still  plainer  in  the  moral 
perfections.  Infinite  holiness  or  love  is  not  a  boundless 
quantum  of  holiness  or  of  love,  but  a  holiness  and 
love  which  qualitatively  are  free  from  all  limitation 
and  defect.  Perhaps  we  may  say  that  infinity  in  God  is 
ultimately  : — {a)  internally  and  qualitatively,  absence  of 
all  limitation  and  defect ;  ( b )  boundless  potentiality. 

3.  From  the  same  character  of  absoluteness  flows 
God’s  immutability .  He  abideth  faithful ;  He  cannot 
deny  Himself  (2  Tim.  ii.  13).  This  changelessness  of 
God,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  is  not  to  be  confounded  with 
immobility,  or  rigid  fixity  in  one  unbending  course  of 
action.  It  does  not  exclude  infinite  variety  in  means  and 
methods  ;  the  “  many-coloured  ”  wisdom  of  which  Paul 
speaks  ( polupoikilos ,  Eph.  iii.  10).  It  is  oneness  in  pur- 

26 


Names  and  Attributes  of  God 


pose,  principle,  character,  aim  ;  the  negation  of  vacilla¬ 
tion,  inconsistency,  fickleness,  caprice. 

III. 

The  determinations  of  God's  Being  as  the  Absolute, 
just  specified,  lie  behind  everything  else  in  God.  They 
are  the  attributes  which  give,  in  fact,  to  His  perfections 
their  quality  as  God's.  They  do  not,  however,  yet 
tell  us  all  that  God  is.  We  only  reach  the  full  concep¬ 
tion  of  God  when  we  think  of  Him,  further,  as  free 
Personal  spirit. 

“God  is  a  Spirit”  (John  iv.  24).  He  is  not,  as  some 
schools  of  thought  imagine,  impersonal,  but  Personal 
Spirit.  It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  enter  into 
elaborate  discussions  about  personality.  Enough  to  say 
that  the  essential  marks  of  personality  are  found  in  these 
three  things — self-consciousness,  character  (ethical),  and 
will.  Any  being  of  whom  these  three  things  can  be 
affirmed  —  and  they  are  really  inseparable  —  can  be 
declared  to  be  a  person.  It  belongs,  then,  to  the  idea  of 
God  that  He  is  (1)  spiritual,  (2)  Personal,  (3)  free. 

1.  On  spirituality  it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell.  The 
Bible  assumes  throughout  that  God  is  distinct  from 
nature,  has  no  material  form,  is  universally  present,  &c. 
From  Him  proceeds  the  “  Spirit.”  But  He  from  whom 
the  Spirit  proceeds  must  be  Himself  spiritual. 

2.  Much  greater  difficulty  arises  with  the  conception 
of  Personality.  This,  some  contend,  is  incompatible  with 
infinity.  Personality,  it  is  argued,  deludes  as  well  as 
includes.  It  implies  distinction  from  another.  An 
infinite  Personality,  therefore — one  which  has  no  limita¬ 
tion  in  any  direction,  and  leaves  nothing  outside  itself, 
is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Some  would  solve  this 
problem  by  ascribing  to  God  what  they  call  a  universal 
Personality — -that  is,  by  making  God  simply  the  self- 

27 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

conscious  centre  of  the  universe,  and  giving  Him  the 
contents  of  the  universe — our  own  thoughts  and  actions 
included — as  the  contents  of  His  consciousness.  But 
this  solution  is  Pantheistic  in  principle,  and  really  makes 
God  but  the  principle  of  unity  in  the  world. 

The  real  answer  is  to  be  sought  for  in  another  direc¬ 
tion.  The  philosopher  Lotze  has  rightly  argued  that,  so 
far  from  personality  being  necessarily  finite,  man’s 
personality  is  only  a  faint  copy  of  the  perfect  Personality  of 
God.  Man  is  limited,  and  is  conscious  of  his  limits — in 
knowledge,  and  in  other  things.  He  is  constantly 
seeking  to  break  down  these  limits.  In  knowledge,  e.g., 
he  is  constantly  seeking  to  break  down  the  limits  between 
himself  and  the  world.  He  does  not  lessen  his  personality 
as  he  takes  more  of  the  world  into  it,  but  enlarges  it.  If 
he  could  break  down  barriers  altogether,  as  in  absolute 
omniscience,  he  would  not  abolish  personality,  but  would 
perfect  it. 

The  objection,  in  truth,  rests  on  that  quantitative  way 
of  conceiving  of  infinitude  which  has  already  been  referred 
to.  Personality  is  not  a  quantitative,  but  a  spiritual  magni¬ 
tude.  The  infinity  of  God’s  Being  and  perfections  does 
not  exclude  the  existence  of  relative  and  dependent  being. 
No  other  such  being  as  God  can  indeed  exist ;  but  relative, 
dependent  being  can  very  well  exist  without  detracting 
from  any  perfection  that  God  possesses. 

3.  Freedom  is  involved  in  spiritual  Personality.  God’s 
sovereign  freedom  is  everywhere  assumed  in  Scripture 
(Ps.  cxxxv.  6  ;  Eph.  i.  11). 


IV. 

This  leads  to  the  consideration  of  the  specific  attributes 
of  God,  in  their  two  divisions  of  natural  and  moral.  The 
natural  attributes  relate  to  God’s  presence,  knowledge, 
and  power,  each  conceived  as  infinite  (omnipresence, 

28 


Names  and  Attributes  of  God 


omniscience,  and  omnipotence)  ;  the  moral  relate  to  His 
perfections  as  holy,  and  may  be  grouped  under  righteous¬ 
ness  and  love.  Problems  of  no  small  interest  arise  in 
connection  with  each. 

I  speak  first  of  the  natural  attributes  of  God. 

1.  Scripture  everywhere  assumes  the  omnipresence  of 
God ;  but  it  is  an  undue  limitation  of  omnipresence  to 
conceive  of  it  as  simply  universal  presence  in  space.  God 
is  present  also  in  the  world  of  mind.  The  term  properly 
denotes  God’s  presence  absolutely.  His  presence  to  all 
creatures,  wherever  being  is,  or  can  be  thought  of  as 
existing.  “  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  Thou  art 
there,”  &c.  (Ps.  cxxxix.  8-10).  In  relation  even  to  the 
external  world,  God  must  be  thought  of  as  present  to  all 
objects  in  space ,  rather  than  as  Himself  in  space.  For  the 
same  reason,  He  is  wholly  present  to  all  beings  every¬ 
where  ;  not  part  here,  and  part  there,  as  if  He  were 
extended  in  space.  This  is  the  fault  of  the  term 
“immensity”  as  applied  to  God.  One  must  think 
also  of  a  moral  nearness  and  distance  of  God  to  indi¬ 
viduals,  to  which  spatial  categories  do  not  at  all  apply. 

2.  Most  amazing  of  the  natural  attributes  of  God  is 
His  omniscience.  While  we  understand  perfectly  the 
meaning  of  our  statement  that  God  knows  all  things ,  we 
feel  that  both  the  manner  and  the  extent  of  this  knowledge 
pass  our  comprehension.  God’s  knowledge,  unlike  ours, 
is  not  successive  and  gradually  acquired,  but  is  intuitive  ; 
is  not  partial,  only  part  of  it  before  consciousness  at  any 
given  time,  but  is  eternally  and  unchangeably  complete  ; 
is  not  imperfect  and  relative  as  ours  is — knowing  in  part, 
seeing  as  in  a  glass  darkly  (i  Cor.  xiii.  12) — but  is  im¬ 
mediate,  unerring,  answering  to  the  inmost  truth  of 
things.  It  is  pure,  undimmed,  unbroken  light  (1  John 
i.  5),  and  the  fountain  of  light  to  others  (Ps.  xxxvi.  9). 

As  respects  the  objects  of  omniscience,  God  knows 

29 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

Himself ,  and  all  the  mystery,  unfathomable  to  us,  of  His 
own  counsels  (Acts  xv.  18  ;  i  Cor.  ii.  n)  ;  knows  the 
whole  universe  of  created  existence — matter  and  spirit 
— in  its  inconceivable  vastness,  complexity,  minuteness 
of  parts,  subtlety  of  thought,  volition,  motion  ;  knows 
the  universe  of  the  possible  as  well  as  of  the  actual  ; 
knows  the  future  equally  with  the  present. 

It  is  this  last  aspect  of  God’s  omniscience  as  foreknow¬ 
ledge,  especially  as  regards  the  free  actions  of  men,  which 
presents  the  most  baffling  problems  to  our  thought.  Where 
necessity  rules  God  can  foreknow.  But  a  free  act  is  thought 
of  as  one  which  originates  solely  with  the  agent.  How, 
then,  it  is  asked,  can  it  be  foreknown  before  even  the 
agent  with  whom  alone  it  lies  to  determine  what  it  shall 
be,  has  so  much  as  been  brought  into  existence  ?  The 
difficulty  is  so  great  that  some  have  been  led  to  deny 
foreknowledge  of  free  actions  altogether  (thus  R.  Rothe, 
Bp.  Martensen,  Dr.  J.  Martineau,  &c.) — a  position  con¬ 
tradicted  by  everything  in  Scripture  (Is.  xlii.  9 ;  xlvi.  10  ; 
xlviii.  5,  6).  Others  take  the  opposite  course  of  denying 
human  freedom  (Jon.  Edwards,  &c.)  Some  evade  the 
difficulty  by  speaking  of  God  as  above  time.  His  Being  is 
an  “  eternal  Now.”  But  while  God,  as  above  seen,  is 
not  in  time,  it  must  yet  be  held  that  time  is  a  reality  for 
God.  There  is  a  past,  present,  and  future,  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  That  which  is  future  is  not  yet,  except  in 
idea,  even  for  God;  and  this  still  leaves  the  problem  un¬ 
solved  of  how  it  can  be  foreseen. 

A  solution  of  this  problem  doubtless  there  is,  though 
our  minds  fail  to  grasp  it.  In  part  it  probably  lies, 
not  in  denying  freedom,  but  in  a  revised  conception  of 
freedom.  For  freedom,  after  all,  is  not  arbitrariness. 
There  is  in  all  rational  action  a  why  for  acting— a  reason 
which  decides  action.  The  truly  free  man  is  not  the  un¬ 
certain,  incalculable  man,  but  the  man  who  is  reliable.  In 

30 


Names  and  Attributes  of  God 


short,  freedom  has  its  laws — spiritual  laws — and  the 
omniscient  Mind  knows  what  these  are.  But  an  element 
of  mystery,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  still  remains. 

God’s  knowledge,  when  applied  to  the  realisation  of 
ends,  is  His  Wisdom. 

3.  The  last  of  the  specific  natural  attributes  of  God 
is  H  is  omnipotence.  Power,  as  we  saw,  is  the  root  idea 
in  the  name  “  Elohim  ”  (God).  Our  own  ideas  of  power 
are  derived  from  the  exercise  of  will,  but  God’s  power 
differs  from  man’s,  in  that  man’s  personal  power  is  never 
creative.  It  is  limited  to  selection  and  control.  Power, 
in  God,  on  the  other  hand,  is  constitutive  and  creative.  It 
brings  into  being — relative,  dependent  being,  no  doubt — 
what  did  not  exist  before. 

It  is  no  objection  to  the  omnipotence  of  God  that  it  is 
limited  to  the  sphere  of  what  is  possible  to  power  ;  cannot 
e.g.,  work  contradictions.  It  is  limited  also  in  its  exercise 
by  God’s  moral  attributes.  The  question  here  is  not 
simply  what  God  can  do,  but  what  He  will  do ;  and  it 
can  be  laid  down  with  confidence  that  God  will  never  do 
that  by  which  He  would  deny  Himself  in  a  moral  respect. 

The  only  other  limitations  to  the  power  of  God  are 
self-imposed ,  arising  from  regard  to  the  nature  of  things 
He  has  Himself  established.  Thus,  ordinarily,  God 
abides  by  the  order  He  has  established  in  nature, 
reserving  the  right  to  supersede  this  order  for  higher 
ends,  if  He  sees  fit  (miracle) ;  similarly,  He  limits  His 
action  by  regard  to  the  laws  of  moral  freedom.  Yet  in 
creation  and  providence  He  rules  all  things,  and  manifests 
His  supremacy  even  in  a  world  of  sin  (Ps.  lxxvi.  10). 

V. 

A  little  must  next  be  said  on  the  moral  attributes  of 
God,  as  these  are  covered  by  the  general  term  Holiness. 

God  is  peculiarly  “  The  Holy  One.”  The  term  “  holy  ” 

3i 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

is  not  found  till  the  period  of  the  Exodus  (Ex.  iii.  5  :  xv. 
11),  but  the  idea  is  there  from  the  beginning.  It  is  the 
aspect  of  God’s  character  made  prominent  in  the  Old 
Testament  (specially  in  Isaiah),  but  is  dwelt  on  also  in 
the  New  (John  xvii.  11 ;  1  Pet.  i.  16  ;  Rev.  iv.  8;  vi.  10, 
&c.). 

Two  ideas  seem  covered  by  the  term  “  holy,”  as 
applied  to  God.  One  is  His  distinction  from  and  infinite 
exaltation  above  everything  that  is  creaturely  and  finite 
(awfulness,  inapproachableness,  majesty  of  God)  :  the 
other  is  His  separation  from  all  moral  impurity ,  or, 
positively,  the  splendour  of  His  moral  perfection.  On  the 
former  Martensen  has  well  said  :  “  Holiness  is  that 

principle  which  guards  the  eternal  distinction  between 
Creator  and  creature,  between  God  and  man,  in  the 
union  effected  between  them,  and  preserves  the  divine 
dignity  and  majesty  from  being  infringed  on  ”  (cf.  Ex. 
ii.  5  :  Is.  xii.  8).  The  latter  is  the  ethical  aspect  of  the 
divine  holiness — that  in  which  it  is  imitable  by  man 
(Matt.  v.  48  ;  1  Pet.  i.  16) — and  denotes  God  as  the 
Being  of  absolute  moral  perfection  (Mark  x.  18). 

The  combined  lustre  of  God’s  moral  perfections  in 
holiness  yields,  in  the  separation  of  its  rays,  the  special 
moral  attributes.  These  may  be  grouped  under  the  two 
heads  of  righteousness  and  love. 

1.  Some  would  deny  the  distinction  between  righteous¬ 
ness  and  love,  and  would  resolve  all  into  love.  This, 
however,  cannot  be  done  satisfactorily,  and  the  relative 
independence  of  righteousness  as  an  aspect  of  God’s 
character  must  be  upheld. 

Righteousness  has  to  do  with  right  and  wrong  in 
conduct — with  the  morally  obligatory.  It  provides  norms 
which  even  love  must  respect.  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law  (Rom.  xiii.  10)  ;  but  the  love  which  enables  us  to 
fulfil  our  duties  does  not  create  the  duties.  These  exist 

32 


Names  and  Attributes  of  God 


independently  and  spring  from  the  fundamental  relations 
of  moral  beings  to  one  another.  The  ultimate  ground  of 
righteousness,  however,  is  in  the  eternal  nature  of  God 
Himself — in  His  essential  righteousness.  Righteousness, 
we  may  say,  is  that  principle  in  God  which  founds  the 
moral  order  of  the  world,  which  is  pledged  to  uphold  that 
order  (Rom.  ii.  2  ;  iii.  6),  and  which  vindicates  it  against 
all  opposition.  Under  it  are  included  such  attributes  as 
God’s  truth  or  faithfulness;  His  justice;  His  zeal  or 
jealousy  for  His  own  honour;  and  His  anger  or  wrath, 
which  is  simply  another  name  for  the  necessary  reaction 
of  God’s  holiness  against  sin,  but  specially,  against  daring 
and  presumptuous  transgression. 

The  outward  form  which  righteousness  assumes  is  law. 
The  inward  witness  to  law  in  man  is  conscience  (Rom.  ii. 
15).  It  is  impossible  to  expel  “  law  ”  from  the  relations 
of  God  to  man,  so  long  as  conscience  remains  an  in¬ 
destructible  witness  to  it. 

2.  This  brings  us  to  the  crowning  attribute  of  the 
divine  character — that  in  which  its  perfection  is 
supremely  expressed — the  attribute  of  love. 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  word  “  love  ”  is  not  found 
as  applied  to  God  till  Deuteronomy.  What  is  still 
stranger,  it  is  not  found  once  in  the  first  three  Gospels  as 
applied  to  God,  nor  in  the  Book  of  Acts  as  applied  to 
either  God  or  man.  The  truth,  however,  is  not  wanting, 
and  the  explanation  is  the  same  in  both  cases,  viz.,  that 
the  acts  in  which  love  is  displayed  must  precede  the  use 
of  the  term.  There  is  first  the  revelation  of  love,  then  the 
naming  of  love.  The  prophets  gather  up  the  lessons  of 
God’s  love  to  Israel.  John  gathers  up  the  meaning  of 
God’s  revelation  in  Christ  in  the  words  “God  is  love” 
(1  John  iv.  8,  16  ;  cf.  John  iii.  16).  Paul  similarly  dwells 
on  the  love  of  God  displayed  in  redemption  (Rom.  v.  8, 
&c.). 


33 


D 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

Very  manifold  are  the  aspects  in  which  the  love  of  God 
is  exhibited  in  Scripture.  A  common  word  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  “mercy,”  but  this  term  has  almost  the 
breadth  of  signification  of  love  itself — kindness,  good¬ 
ness,  benevolence  ;  not  simply,  as  commonly  with  our¬ 
selves,  compassion  to  the  sinful  or  unfortunate.  As 
special  forms  of  love  may  be  distinguished — 

(1)  Goodness  or  benevolence — God’s  general  goodwill  to 
men  (e.g.,  Matt.  v.  45  ;  Rom.  ii.  4).  Goodness  extends 
also  to  the  lower  creation ;  love  proper  has  relation  to 
personality. 

(2)  As  delighting  in  those  who  reflect  His  moral 
image,  love  in  God  is  complacency  ( cf .  Zeph.  iii.  17). 

(3)  As  affected  by  misery,  suffering,  misfortune,  love 
is  pity,  compassion,  mercy. 

(4)  As  bearing  with  the  froward  and  bad,  love  is  long- 
suffering,  or  forbearance  (Rom.  ii.  4). 

(5)  As  bestowing  benefits  on  the  sinful  and  undeserv¬ 
ing,  love  is  grace. 

As  respects  its  range,  God’s  love  embraces  the  whole 
world  (John  iii.  16).  Yet  love  in  God  has  also  its  peculiar 
objects — e.g.,  in  the  Old  Testament,  Israel,  the  people 
whom  God,  of  free  grace,  had  bound  in  covenant  with 
Himself  (Ex.  xix.  4-6) ;  in  the  New  Testament,  those  in 
union  with  His  Son  (John  xvii.  23).  There  is  the  divine 
“  election  ”  ;  but  electing  love,  one  comes  to  see,  is  never 
election  to  the  exclusion  of  others,  but  election  with  a 
view  to  the  future  larger  blessing  of  others  (e.g.,  Gen.  xii. 
i-3)- 


34 


Ill 


The  Trinity  of  God 
The  Divine  Purpose 


The  Trinity  of  God 
The  Divine  Purpose 

FROM  the  love  of  God,  which  is  the  highest  point 
reached  in  the  consideration  of  the  divine 
attributes,  the  transition  is  most  easily  made  to 
the  mysterious  subject  of  the  divine  Trinity.  For  love, 
as  of  the  eternal  nature  of  God,  can  hardly,  as  has 
already  been  pointed  out,  subsist  save  through  some  form 
of  personal  distinction  in  the  divine  Being.  Love  is  not 
the  attribute  of  a  solitary  personality.  It  implies  an 
object — some  one  who  is  loved.  Just  as  Fatherhood 
was  seen  to  imply  Sonship,  so  love  in  God — if  love  is  of 
His  essence — implies  a  relation  to  Another,  who  is  also 
God.  The  defect  of  Unitarianism  is  that,  in  default  of 
such  a  conception,  it  is  compelled  to  lay  the  accent  on 
God’s  power ,  and  to  regard  love  as  contingent  for  its 
exercise  on  the  existence  of  a  world.  The  full  Christian 
view  gives  the  warmer,  more  satisfying  conception  of 
God  as  a  Being  who  holds  within  Himself  the  distinction 
necessary  for  an  eternal  movement  of  Life,  Thought, 
and  Love,  expressed  in  the  threefold  name  of  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 


I. 

God  is  triune.  It  is  this  great  truth,  yet  wondrous 
mystery  of  the  Being  of  God,  we  are  now  to  consider. 
Let  us  see,  first,  how  we  arrive  at  this  idea  or  notion 

37 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

of  God  as  Trinity.  Here  the  first  thing  to  be  affirmed  is 
that  the  divine  Trinity,  while  meeting  the  need  of  a 
complete  spiritual  view  of  God,  is  yet  essentially  a  doctrine 
of  revelation.  I  mean  by  this  that  it  is  not  a  doctrine 
which  would  have  been  known,  or  which  we  could  have 
put  forth  with  confidence,  on  grounds  of  reason  alone, 
but  one  which  first  comes  to  light  in  the  course  of  God’s 
historical  Self-revelation.  The  contrary  of  this  is  often 
maintained.  You  will  find  brilliant  books  in  which  the 
idea  is  advocated  that  the  whole  notion  of  the  Trinity 
comes  to  us  from  Greek  philosophy,  or  other  foreign 
sources.  Now  I  do  not  mean  that  philosophy,  or 
rational  thought,  has  no  points  of  contact  with  this 
doctrine.  It  is  indeed  a  most  instructive  fact — not  one 
which  injures  our  faith,  but  which  manifestly  strengthens 
and  corroborates  it — that,  in  all  ages,  whenever  men 
have  set  themselves  seriously  to  think  out  their  idea  of 
God,  they  have  found  themselves  driven,  on  philosophic 
grounds,  to  abandon  the  idea  of  bare  unity  in  God,  and 
to  introduce  the  thought  of  living  movement  and  of  self¬ 
distinction  into  their  conception.  It  was  so  in  ancient 
Platonism ;  it  was  so  in  mediaeval  Mysticism  ;  it  has 
been  so  in  modern  systems. 

Nevertheless,  it  was  certainly  not  from  philosophy  that 
the  Biblical  writers,  or  the  early  Church,  got  this 
doctrine,  any  more  than  they  got  from  it  the  idea  of  God 
Himself.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is,  in  truth,  got 
by  induction  from  the  facts  of  the  Christian  revelation, 
and  aims  simply  at  gathering  up  and  correctly  expressing 
what  is  involved  in  these  facts  as  regards  the  nature  of 
God  ;  just  as  in  any  other  sphere  of  knowledge  we  arrive 
at  general  truths  by  inductions  in  that  sphere.  Take, 
e.g.,  the  knowledge  which  each  one  possesses  of  the 
faculties  of  his  own  mind.  You  know  in  consciousness 
that  the  mind — the  self — is  one  and  indivisible ;  yet  it 

38 


The  Trinity  of  God 

subsists  in  a  plurality  of  powers  and  activities,  which 
you  discover,  distinguish,  and  name,  from  your  observa¬ 
tion  of  them.  Or  take  such  a  fact  in  physical  science  as 
magnetism.  You  know — what  you  could  never  learn  by 
a  priori  reasoning — that  every  magnet  has  a  north  and 
a  south  pole.  How  do  you  get  that  knowledge  ?  By 
observation  and  induction  from  the  facts  of  magnetism 
presented  to  you.  How,  then,  do  I  know  that  God  is 
Triune  ?  Not  by  metaphysical  reasoning,  but  by 
induction  from  the  facts  of  God’s  revelation  of  Himself 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  specially  in  the  Gospel 
of  redemption. 

Redemption,  as  the  Scripture  reveals  it,  has  three  great 
Fountain-heads — each  divine — Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  these  three  are  One  God.  In  illustration  of 
this  inductive  method,  note  how  the  Apostle  John  rose 
to  the  conviction  of  the  identity  of  the  historical  Jesus 
with  that  “  Word  ”  which  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God,  and  was  God  (John  i.  i).  Was  it  by  abstract 
reasoning,  or  learning  in  the  school  of  Philo?  No;  it 
was,  as  John  himself  emphasizes,  from  what  he  had  him¬ 
self  seen  and  heard  of  Jesus  in  His  historical  manifesta¬ 
tion  :  “  We  beheld  His  glory;  glory  of  the  Only-begotten 
of  the  Father,”  &c.  (John  i.  14 ;  1  John  i.  3). 

II. 

The  doctrine,  then,  is  obtained  by  observing  and 
collating  what,  is  declared  in  Scripture,  and  discovered 
in  the  process  of  human  salvation,  regarding  these  divine 
Persons. 

1.  In  proceeding  to  more  special  proof  of  this  doctrine 
we  naturally  turn,  first,  to  the  well-known  Trinitarian 
formula  in  the  direction  for  Baptism,  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 
This  is  the  cardinal  text  on  the  subject :  “  Baptizing 
them  info  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 

59 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  The  passage  is  the  more  interest¬ 
ing  that  it  occurs,  not  in  St.  John,  or  in  the  Epistles,  but 
in  one  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  is  put  into  the  mouth 
of  the  Lord  Himself,  as  part  of  His  last  solemn  com¬ 
mission  to  His  disciples. 

Observe  then  carefully,  (i),  on  this  subject,  that  it  is 
not  three  names  into  which  disciples  are  to  be  baptised — 
not  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  into  the  name  of 
the  Son,  and  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit — but  one 
name ,  which  is  threefold  ;  the  one  “  name  ”  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  has  to  be 
borne  in  mind  what  was  before  said  of  the  “  name  ” 
of  God  in  the  Bible  ;  that  it  is  not  a  mere  vocable,  but 
is  always  an  expression  of  some  aspect  of  God’s  nature. 
The  single,  yet  threefold,  name  into  which  we  are 
baptised  is  expressive  therefore  of  what  is  most  distinctive 
in  the  Christian  revelation  of  God. 

If  we  look  further  into  this  formula,  which,  I  think, 
goes  to  the  root  of  the  matter,  we  find  a  great  deal  more 
regarding  this  mystery  of  the  divine  nature. 

(2)  For  example,  the  Father  in  this  formula  is  divine. 
No  one  doubts  that.  Few  will  deny  either  that  the 
Spirit  is  divine.  There  is  discussion  about  the  Personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  not  much  about  His  divinity. 
Must  it  not,  then,  in  simple  consistency,  be  held  that 
the  second  member  in  this  triune  circle,  namely,  the  Son, 
also  is  divine  ?  Suppose  another  name  put  into  the 
formula,  and  it  be  read :  “  Baptising  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  Isaiah  (or  Paul,  or  John), 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,”  how  utterly  incongruous  we 
should  feel  it  to  be.  But  we  do  not  feel  this  incongruity 
when  the  name  of  the  Son  is  inserted.  Why  ?  Because 
our  faith,  instructed  by  the  Scriptures,  regards  Jesus, 
the  Son,  as  divine.  Otherwise  He  would  have  no  right 
to  a  place  in  this  formula.  The  Father  is  the  Father  of 

40 


The  Trinity  of  God 

the  Son  ;  the  Son  is  the  Son  of  the  Father.  Both,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  are  divine. 

(3)  I  have  said  that  few  deny  the  divinity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  many  question  His  Personality.  The  Spirit 
is,  it  is  often  said,  not  a  Person,  but  an  influence.  But 
look  at  the  formula  once  more.  The  Father  plainly  is 
Personal,  is  He  not  ?  The  Son  also  undoubtedly  is 
Personal.  Must  we  not,  therefore,  in  all  fair  reasoning, 
hold  that  the  third  member  in  this  sacred  circle — the 
Holy  Spirit — is  likewise  Personal.  Else  again  the  formula 
would  lose  its  consistency. 

As  a  result  we  have  a  triple  distinction  in  the  unity  of 
the  Godhead — each  member  conceived  as  divine,  each  as 
Personal. 

2.  It  might  readily  be  shown  that  the  same  doctrine 
of  a  threefold  distinction  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  underlies  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  whole  New  Testament.  Everywhere  in  the 
New  Testament  is  the  recognition  of  three  great  Principals, 
or  Agents,  in  the  work  of  human  salvation,  called  by 
these  three  names.  The  baptismal  formula  just  con¬ 
sidered  is  one  illustration.  Another  is  found  in  the 
familiar  Apostolic  benediction  in  2  Cor.  xiii.  14 :  “  The 
grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God, 
and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all.” 
Here,  as  in  the  former  case,  we  have  mention  made  of 
three  co-ordinate  Sources  of  salvation — the  name  of 
Christ  being  even  put  first — and  we  have  only  again  to 
apply  the  test  we  applied  to  the  baptismal  formula,  and 
suppose  a  man’s  name — Paul’s  or  John’s — inserted 
instead  of  Christ’s,  to  see  how  incongruous  and  false  it 
would  be. 

Other  passages  of  the  same  order  in  the  New  Testament 
are  1  Cor.  xii.  4-6  :  “  Diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same 
Spirit  .  .  .  Diversities  of  ministrations,  but  the 

41 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

same  Lord,  .  .  .  Diversities  of  workings,  but  the 

same  God  ”  (cf.  Eph.  iv.  4-6)  ;  1  Pet.  i.  2  :  “  According 
to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctifica¬ 
tion  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  ”  ;  Rev.  i.  4,  5  :  “  From  Him  who 
is,  and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come  ;  and  from  the  seven 
Spirits  that  are  before  His  throne;  and  from  Jesus 
Christ,”  &c.  Here  the  Spirit,  elsewhere  spoken  of  as 
single  (Ch.  ii.  7,  11,  17,  &c.),  and  united  with  the  Father 
and  Christ  as  the  source  of  “  grace  and  peace,”  is 
symbolised  as  sevenfold  in  manifestation. 

In  a  very  large  number  of  other  New  Testament 
passages  it  is  instructive  to  notice  how  closely  the  Father 
and  Jesus  Christ  are  bound  together  as  conjoint  sources  of 
blessing.  Thus,  in  the  constant  greeting  of  the  Epistles  : 
“  Grace  to  you  and  peace,  from  God  the  Father  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ”  (Rom.  i.  7,  and  generally).  This, 
again,  is  inconceivable,  if  Christ  be  not  regarded  as  in 
nature  divine.  The  direct  proofs  of  Christ’s  own  divinity 
in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  are  here  in  place,  but 
will  better  be  considered  in  connection  with  Christ’s 
Person. 

3.  If  this,  now,  is  the  full  Christian  idea  of  God,  it  is 
not  unreasonable  to  expect  that  at  least  anticipatory 
indications  of  the  doctrine  will  be  found  all  along  the  line 
of  revelation?  It  may  be  that  occasionally  theologians 
have  tried  to  read  too  much  New  Testament  doctrine  into 
the  Old  Testament.  But  if  God,  as  we  believe,  is  really 
triune — Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit — it  is  surely  im¬ 
possible  that  some  preludings  of  this  will  not  be  manifest 
in  His  earlier  revelations.  Such  preludings  we  actually 
find. 

(1)  There  is,  as  already  stated,  the  name  Elohim 
itself — a  name  which  belongs  absolutely  to  the  Old 
Testament.  Plural  in  form,  and  used,  as  was  seen,  with 

43 


The  Trinity  of  God 

a  singular  verb,  the  name  expresses  at  least  that  God  is 
not  simple  unity,  but  has  fulness  of  life  in  Himself  (a 
fact  which  itself  implies  differentiation  and  distinction). 
Connected  with  this  is  the  idea  of  Self-converse  in  God,  as 
in  the  narrative  of  the  Creation  :  “  Let  us  make  man  in 
our  image,”  &c.  (Gen.  i.  26 ;  cf.  iii.  22  ;  Is.  vi.  9). 

(2)  There  is,  again,  as  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
things  in  the  earliest  or  patriarchal  age,  that  singular 
form  of  revelation  in  the  Angel  of  God  or  Angel  of  Jehovah. 
Again  and  again  in  the  earlier  books  you  have  appear¬ 
ances  of  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  and  revelations  made 
through  Him  ;  and  the  peculiarity  of  the  Angel  is  that, 
while  distinguishing  Himself  from  Jehovah,  He  is  yet, 
again,  in  some  mysterious  way,  identified  with  Jehovah, 
speaks  in  His  name,  nay,  is  declared  to  be  Jehovah  Him¬ 
self.  Thus,  in  connection  with  Hagar,  Gen.  xvi.  7,  12  ; 
with  Abraham,  Gen.  xxii.  11-18;  with  Moses,  Ex.  iii.  3-6, 
&c.,  Jehovah’s  “name”  (nature)  is  in  the  Angel  (Ex.  xxiii. 
21).  Most  writers  in  the  Church,  from  Justin  Martyr 
and  Tertullian  down,  have  seen  in  these  appearances  of 
the  Angel  a  forecast — a  pre-revelation — of  that  distinc¬ 
tion  of  God  and  His  “  Word”  which  comes  to  light  in 
the  New  Testament. 

(3)  We  have,  yet  again,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the 
ideas  of  the  Word  and  of  the  Wisdom  of  God  (cf.  Prov. 
viii.  22  Jf.) — ideas  developed  in  the  later  Jewish  schools 
into  the  doctrine  of  the  “  Memra,”  or  Word  of  God, 
and  in  the  Alexandrian  school  (Philo)  into  the  doctrine 
of  the  “  Logos,”  both  providential  preparations  for  the 
New  Testament  doctrine  (cf.  Westcott’s  Introd.  to  the 
Study  of  the  Gospels ,  pp.  147-152). 

(4)  Lastly,  there  is  the  abundant  Old  Testament  teach¬ 
ing  on  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  Spirit  is  no  mere  forth- 
putting  of  the  power  or  energy  of  God,  but  is  an  active, 
abiding  principle  in  God,  which,  as  revelation  goes  on,  has 

43 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

attributed  to  it  more  or  less  clearly  a  Personal  character 
(Is.  xl.  13  ;  xlviii.  16). 

Here,  then,  already  are  outlined  in  no  indistinct  way 
the  leading  features  of  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of 
God  as  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit. 

III. 

There  is,  of  course,  a  great  deal  that  one  would  like 
to  say  on  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  considered  in 
itself — difficulties  that  have  been  raised  regarding  it, 
questions  that  arise  out  of  it — but  I  only  take  up  one 
or  two  of  the  points  that  lie  nearest  the  surface. 

1.  I  dare  say,  for  one  thing,  there  is  a  feeling  in  many 
minds — it  has  often  been  expressed — to  the  effect  that, 
even  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  true,  it  is  not  a  very 
vital  or  practical  doctrine.  It  is  something  subtle,  so  it  is 
said,  something  speculative,  something  difficult  to  under¬ 
stand — something,  therefore,  which  belongs  to  the  theory 
of  religion  rather  than  to  vital  Christian  faith.  So  the 
plain  Christian  is  exhorted  to  set  aside  this  doctrine,  and 
confine  himself  to  the  simple  practicalities  of  the  Christian 
religion. 

Now,  I  wish  to  say  strongly  that  I  take  this  to  imply 
an  utter  misunderstanding  of  the  real  state  of  the  case. 
It  is  this  feeling,  I  know,  which  has  given  rise  historically 
to  a  great  deal  of  what  we  call  Unitarianism.  But  it 
seems  to  rest,  nevertheless,  on  a  serious  misconception. 

First  of  all,  this  doctrine,  as  I  regard  it,  is  not  un¬ 
important, ,  but  goes  down,  as  I  tried  to  show  before,  to 
the  very  foundations  of  our  Christian  faith.  If  you  take 
it  away,  tamper  with  it,  put  it  aside,  you  will  speedily 
find  that  you  have  altered  your  conception  of  Christianity, 
and  that  there  is  not  a  doctrine  in  the  Christian  system 
but  suffers  in  consequence.  But,  apart  from  this,  I  should 
like  to  say,  second ,  that  in  my  judgment,  and,  I  believe, 

44 


The  Trinity  of  God 

in  that  of  those  who  have  gone  most  deeply  into  this 
subject,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  so  far  from  being  a 
bare  speculative  doctrine,  is  one  of  the  utmost  practical 
value  in  our  Christian  thinking.  Of  so  great  value  is  it 
that,  if  anyone  once  comes  to  realise  what  is  involved  in 
it,  he  will  never  again  part  with  it,  or  be  able  to  feel  that 
he  has  the  right  conception  of  God  without  it.  There  is 
really  no  help  to  the  understanding  in  conceiving  of  God, 
as  the  Unitarian  does,  as  simple,  undifferentiated  unity; 
while  there  is  much  aid  in  thinking  of  God  as,  in  His 
own  eternal  Being,  at  once  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 

To  illustrate  this,  suppose  the  other  view  to  be  taken, 
and  the  idea  or  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  God  to  be 
set  aside.  See  what  follows.  For  one  thing,  ask  how,  in 
that  case,  you  must  conceive  of  God  Himself.  I  spoke 
before  of  the  relation  of  this  doctrine  to  the  love  of  God. 
It  seems  plain  that,  if  this  doctrine  is  rejected,  you  have 
no  alternative  but  to  conceive  of  God  as  subsisting 
through  the  eternal  ages  before  the  creation  of  the  world 
as  a  vast  solitary  Ego ,  with  no  one  to  love,  no  one  to  have 
communion  with,  no  possibility  of  fellowship,  or  Father¬ 
hood,  or  social  affection  of  any  kind.  For  love,  as  was 
said  earlier,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  involves  an  object 
of  love.  Communion  implies  those  between  whom  there 
is  communion.  So  that,  if  you  take  away  some  such 
distinction  in  God  as  we  associate  with  the  Trinity,  you 
take  away  from  Him,  apart  from  the  world,  and  before 
the  world,  the  possibility  of  Fatherhood  and  love. 

You  say,  perhaps,  that  these  things  are  there  at  least 
as  potentialities,  or  possibilities,  in  God,  to  be  brought 
into  exercise  when  moral  beings  are  created.  You  say 
that  God  had  in  His  eternal  mind  at  least  the  purpose  of 
creating  the  world — of  calling  into  existence  the  universe, 
angels,  men — so,  looking  forward,  God  could  see  myriads 
of  objects  of  His  Fatherly  love  and  care.  Yes,  but 

45 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

does  this  meet  the  difficulty  about  Fatherhood  and  love 
in  God’s  own  nature  ?  Surely  not.  First  of  all,  it 
means,  does  it  not,  that  God  is  made  actually  dependent 
on  His  own  world  for  being  Father,  for  being  love,  for 
having  fellowship  and  communion  ?  It  is  not  that  God 
is  love  in  Himself,  and  then  out  of  that  love  creates  a 
world.  For  love  in  His  eternal  essence  He  cannot  be  if 
He  is  an  eternally  solitary  Being. 

But  more  than  this.  How  is  it  supposed  possible  for 
God  to  find  an  adequate  object  for  His  affections  and 
fellowship  in  those  finite  spirits  He  has  made,  or  pur¬ 
poses  to  make  ?  We  know  very  well  that,  in  our  own 
human  love,  any  soul  that  has  depth  in  it  needs  a  soul 
of  kindred  depth,  in  order  that  there  may  be  a  complete 
relation  of  love.  I  go  even  further.  Is  there  any  human 
soul  that  can  find  itself  satisfied  with  the  love  of  any 
finite  being,  or  with  all  finite  love  taken  together  ?  Is  it 
not  true  of  every  one  of  us — do  we  not  affirm  it  in  our 
every-day  teaching  and  preaching — that  our  souls  can  only 
find  their  complete  rest  in  the  infinite  God,  in  an  infinite 
love  ?  You  remember  Augustine’s  famous  saying  :  “  O 
God,  Thou  has  made  us  for  Thyself,  and  our  souls  are  ever 
restless  till  they  rest  in  Thee.”  Our  finite  souls  need  an 
infinite  Object  to  rest  in.  How,  then,  is  God,  the  Infinite 
One,  Himself  to  find  an  object  for  His  Fatherly  love, 
commensurate  with  His  infinitude,  in  our  finite  souls  ? 
Where  is  He  to  find  that  Other — that  Fellow  to  Himself 
— who  shall  be  the  perfect  image  of  Himself,  and  the 
absolutely  satisfying  Object  of  His  love  ?  Here  it  is  that 
the  great  truth  of  the  Trinity  comes  in — the  truth  that 
God,  in  His  own  eternal  being,  in  His  own  eternal  life,  is 
not  that  absolutely  solitary  One  we  have  been  supposing  ; 
but  that,  through  this  Self-distinction  in  His  nature — the 
eternal  Son  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  and,  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  the  Eternal  Spirit,  there  is  a  life  of 

46 


The  Trinity  of  God 

love  and  fellowship,  a  reciprocal  communion  in  God 
Himself. 

You  begin  to  see,  I  trust,  how  deep-reaching  this 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is.  It  teaches  us,  as  I  said  at 
the  first,  that  it  is  not  in  the  relation  of  God  to  the 
world  and  man,  but  in  the  relation  to  the  Eternal  Son, 
that  the  spring  of  Fatherhood  is  found  in  the  heart  of 
God.  So  Fatherhood  comes  to  be  of  the  essence  of  God, 
which  it  could  not  be  in  any  other  way. 

2.  There  is  a  difficulty,  I  well  know,  which  presses 
on  many  minds,  in  the  use  of  the  word  “  Person  ”  to 
describe  this  distinction  in  the  nature  of  God.  We 
speak  of  “three  Persons  in  the  Godhead,”  but  the 
imperfection  of  this  word  “  Person  ”  has  always  been 
felt.  “  Person  ”  with  us  means  a  separate  individual ; 
in  God  it  denotes  a  distinction  within  the  divine  nature 
itself,  comparable  to  no  other.  To  suppose  the 
“  Persons  ”  of  the  Godhead  to  be  actually  distinct 
individuals  would  be  to  fall  into  the  form  of  error  called 
“Tritheism.”  The  word  “  Person”  is  not  found  in  the 
Nicene  Creed.  Yet  it  is  difficult  to  find  a  better  word 
to  express  the  thought  that  the  distinctions  in  the  God¬ 
head  are  not  simply,  as  it  is  phrased,  “modal  ”  (which  is 
the  error  called  “  Sabellianism  ”),  but  imply  a  true 
distinction  of  self-consciousness,  and  will,  and  love — 
and  I  and  Thou  and  He — in  the  divine  nature,  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit  being  each  Self-conscious  centres  of 
knowledge,  will,  and  love.  If  this  real  distinction, 
implied  in  all  that  is  said  of  Son  and  Spirit  in  the 
Scriptures,  is  not  to  be  lost  hold  of,  it  would  seem  that 
the  word  Person,  or  some  synonym,  cannot  be  avoided 
to  express  it. 

In  the  inner  relations  of  these  divine  “  Persons  ”  to  one 
another  there  is  no  doubt  much  that  is  mysterious ; 
yet  enough  is  revealed  regarding  Them  to  enable  us  to 

47 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

distinguish  them  with  propriety.  The  Father,  in  the 
language  of  the  old  theologians,  is  the  Fons  Deitatis — 
the  original  Fountain-Head  or  principle  of  the  Godhead ; 
therefore  in  Scripture  is  frequently  called  “  God  ” 
absolutely  (e.g.,  John  i.  i ;  xvii.  3  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  14).  The 
Son  is  the  eternal  “  Image  ”  of  the  Father  (Col.  i.  15) — 
the  “Brightness  of  His  Glory”  (Heb.  i.  3) — the 
principle  of  revelation  in  creation,  providence,  and 
redemption;  hence  called  the  “  Logos  ”  or  “Word”  of 
God  (John  i.  1,  2).  The  Spirit  is  the  principle  of  Self- 
knowledge  in  the  Godhead  (1  Cor.  ii.  10,  11),  the  Source 
of  divine  energies  and  of  all  gracious  and  holy  influences  ; 
hence  His  peculiar  name,  “  Holy  Spirit.”  In  the  language 
of  theology,  the  Son  is  spoken  of  as  “  begotten  ”  ( cf .  John 
i.  16 :  “  The  only-begotten  Son  ”),  this  with  the  view, 
first,  of  distinguishing  the  mode  of  His  origin  from 
“  creation”  (the  Son  Himself  is  the  Creator  of  all,  John 
i.  2),  and,  next,  of  indicating  that  He  is  of  the  Father’s 
own  substance — “very  God  of  very  God”;  and  the 
Spirit  is  described  as  “  proceeding  ”  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son  (John  xv.  26) — “  breathed  forth,”  as  the 
name  indicates.  But  here  we  enter  a  region  in  which, 
confessedly,  language  is  but  a  symbol  to  express  that 
which  in  its  nature  is  ineffable.  “  Not  that  it  may  be 
spoken,”  said  Augustine,  “  but  that  it  may  not  be  left 
unspoken.” 


IV. 

From  this  profound  subject  of  the  divine  Trinity  I 
pass  now  to  speak  of  the  Purpose  of  God,  and  of  the 
execution  of  that  purpose  in  creation  and  providence. 
It  is  in  this  doctrine  of  the  divine  purpose  that  the 
transition  is  made  from  what  God  is  in  Himself  to  what 
He  is  in  relation  to  the  world. 

48 


The  Trinity  of  God 

Let  no  one  be  alarmed  when  mention  is  made  of  the 
divine  purpose.  If  I  touch  on  this  high  and  difficult 
theme,  it  is  not  with  the  object  of  entering  into  metaphy¬ 
sical  discussions  upon  the  “  Decrees,”  or  of  bringing  up 
the  points  of  controversy  between  one  Christian  sect 
and  another,  as  between  Calvinists  and  Arminians. 
My  intention  is  to  confine  myself  to  those  broad, . 
basal  affirmations  which  everyone,  I  am  sure,  who  under¬ 
stands  the  teaching  of  Scripture  must  hold  fast  by,  and 
to  try  to  show  how  direct  is  their  bearing  on  our  Christian 
thought  and  life. 

When  we  say  with  Scripture  that  God  has  a  “  purpose  ” 
— an  eternal  purpose  ;  in  Paul’s  language,  “  the  purpose  of 
Him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His  will  ” 
(Eph.  i.  g,  n),  we  mean  simply  that  God  has  a  plan — 
an  eternal  plan — which  He  carries  out  in  His  creation 
and  in  His  providence ;  and  this,  so  far  from  being  a 
far-off,  metaphysical  thing,  is  in  truth  the  rockfast 
foundation  of  all  our  Christian  thinking  about  God  in 
His  relation  to  the  world.  “  The  counsel  of  the  Lord 
standeth  for  ever,  the  thoughts  of  Plis  heart  to  all 
generations  ”  (Ps.  xxxiii.  n). 

That  in  this  general  sense  God  has  a  “plan”  in  all 
His  acting,  few,  I  think,  will  be  disposed  to  dispute.  If 
we  attribute  to  God,  as  all  Christians  must,  self-conscious 
Personality,  and  infinite  knowledge  and  wisdom,  this 
already  implies,  (i)  that  in  all  that  He  does  God  does 
not  act  blindly,  but  acts  with  intelligence  and  motive  ;  and 
(2)  that  in  all  that  God  does  He  does  not  act  arbitrarily, 
but  on  settled  principles  of  wisdom  and  goodness.  In¬ 
telligent  action  is  action  governed  by  the  idea  of  an  end, 
and  wisdom,  in  a  good  and  holy  Being,  manifests  itself 
in  the  choosing  of  the  best  ends,  and  of  the  best  means 
to  attain  these  ends.  Thus  far  there  will  be  general 
agreement.  God’s  plan,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  must 

49  E 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

be  eternal,  and  does  not  alter.  His  purpose,  formed  in 
eternity,  He  executes  in  time. 

A  more  difficult  question  arises  when  we  ask,  What  is 
the  end  which  God  has  in  view  in  this  plan  of  His,  or  in 
the  purpose  which  He  executes  in  time  ?  The  manner  of 
its  execution,  and  its  relation  to  human  freedom,  we  leave 
over  to  the  doctrine  of  providence.  But  the  question  of 
the  end  may  be  glanced  at  here. 

If  we  raise  this  question,  What  is  God’s  great  last  end 
in  His  creation  and  in  His  providence  ?  I  think  that,  on 
the  largest  scale,  we  can  only  say  with  the  older  writers 
that  it  must  be  the  manifestation  of  His  moral  attributes 
in  their  highest  possible  exercise,  or,  as  it  was  wont  to  be 
put,  His  own  glory.  So  far  we  may  go  with  the  saintly 
Jonathan  Edwards  in  his  famous  Dissertation  on  “  God’s 
Last  End  in  Creation,”  and  say  that  His  own  glory  is 
the  end.  But  this  does  not  carry  us  far  enough.  What 
God’s  end  is,  is  necessarily  determined  by  His  character. 
So  we  go  on  to  ask :  What  is  it  in  the  Christian  revelation 
which  we  are  taught  to  regard  as  of  the  essence  of  God’s 
character  ?  And  here  the  note  comes  back  to  us — rings 
out  from  the  whole  revelation  of  God  in  Christ — that  the 
essence  of  God’s  character  consists  in  love.  “  God  is 
love,”  says  John  (i  John  iv.  8,  16).  This  is  the  highest 
declaration  the  Bible  ever  makes  about  God.  We  there¬ 
fore  come  to  this,  that  God’s  plan  or  purpose,  from  the 
Bible  point  of  view,  must  be  regarded  as  determined  by 
God’s  love.  It  must  be  regarded  as  framed  to  carry  out 
in  the  highest  and  fullest  possible  way  the  ends  of  love ; 
and  we  do  well  in  all  our  inquiries  never  to  lose  hold  of 
this  as  our  guiding  clue. 

This  evidently  is  a  position  which  requires  to  be  stated 
with  care  to  safeguard  it  against  abuse.  It  is  necessary 
to  remember  that  what  we  call  “  love  ”  in  God  is  not  mere 
good  nature.  It  is  not  a  soft,  yielding  benevolence,  but  is 

50 


The  Trinity  of  God 

always  viewed  in  Scripture  as  in  harmony  with  every  other 
attribute  in  God’s  character.  It  is  viewed  as  in  consistency 
with  holiness,  with  righteousness,  with  truth  ;  with  all 
God’s  other  perfections.  What  is  to  be  said  is  that  love 
in  God  defines  the  end  which  all  these  other  attributes 
are  engaged  to  carry  through  to  its  fullest  extent. 

To  illustrate:  there  is  judgment  in  God;  wrath  in 
God.  Any  theology  that  tries  to  cut  out  the  idea  of 
wrath  in  God  will  soon  find  itself  in  a  very  limp  con¬ 
dition.  There  is  judgment  in  God — wrath  awful  and 
terrible  (Rom.  i.  18  ;  ii.  8,  9,  &c.) — but  then  judgment  and 
wrath  are  never  put  forth  in  the  Bible  as  something  that 
God  delights  in  on  its  own  account.  Judgment,  the  Bible 
tells  us,  is  God’s  “strange  work”  (Is.  xxviii.  21).  If  the 
sinner  dies  in  his  sins,  it  is  not  because  God  desires  that 
he  should  die.  God  has  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the 
wicked,  but  rather  that  he  should  return  from  his  way, 
and  live  (Ez.  xviii.  23).  Love,  therefore,  is  still  God’s 
end,  and  His  purpose,  if  we  could  see  it  in  its  entirety,  is 
subservient  to  the  ends  of  love. 


5i 


IV 


Creation  and  Providence 


I 


Creation  and  Providence 


IT  was  stated  under  last  head  that  the  transition  from 
the  doctrine  of  God  to  that  of  the  world  is  given  in 
the  idea  of  the  divine  Purpose,  and  a  little  was  said 
on  what  the  purpose  of  God  means,  and  of  love  as 
defining  the  end  of  God’s  purpose.  The  nature  of  the 
purpose  of  God,  however,  is  best  seen  by  observing  it  in 
its  execution,  and  the  two  spheres  in  which  that  execu¬ 
tion  is  to  be  traced  are  Creation  and  Providence. 


I. 

I  pass  then  to  speak  of  Creation,  as  the  first  way  in 
which  the  purpose  of  God  is  realised. 

I  do  not  need  to  delay  long  on  what  is  meant  by  the 
word  creation.  By  this  term  is  simply  signified  that  all 
things  that  are  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  “  things  visible 
and  things  invisible”  (Col.  i.  16),  have  been  brought  into 
being  by  a  free  act  of  God’s  wisdom  and  almighty  power, 
and  that  they  continue  to  subsist  in  Him  (Acts  xvii.  28  ; 
cf.  Col.  i.  17),  and  to  be  dependent  on  Him  for  their 
existence  (cf.  Heb.  i.  2).  This  is  a  doctrine  which  runs 
through  all  Scripture ;  is,  indeed,  as  will  be  shown 
immediately,  peculiar  to  it.  It  is  not  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  only  which  affirms  this  doctrine.  It  is  found 
from  the  first  page  of  the  Bible  to  its  last.  The  first 
words  of  Scripture  are  :  “  In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  ”  (Gen.  i.  1)  ;  among  its  last 

55 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

are :  “  Thou  didst  create  all  things,  and  because  of  Thy 
will  they  were,  and  were  created”  (Rev.  iv.  n). 

In  strictness  the  above  definition  includes  what 
theology  would  call  “  conservation”  as  well  as  creation; 
but  in  the  large  sense  in  which  I  use  the  term,  “  creation  ” 
is  meant  to  cover  both  God’s  initial  act  in  calling 
things  into  existence,  and  His  preserving  power  in 
sustaining  them  in  existence  after  they  are  created. 
The  two  ideas  are  inseparably  connected.  Things  do 
not  get  out  of  God’s  hands  after  they  have  been  created, 
or  ever  attain  an  independent  existence.  This  is  the 
error  of  Deism.  God  cannot  get  rid  of  His  world  in 
this  way.  The  world  is  sustained  and  preserved  by 
Him  ;  and  this,  in  a  manner,  also  is,  as  it  has  been 
phrased,  “  a  continual  creation.” 

Here,  however,  the  question  may  be  raised :  “  After 
all,  does  it  very  much  matter  how  the  world  has  come 
into  being,  now  that  it  is  here  ?  Has  religion  any  real 
interest  in  such  a  doctrine  as  creation — in  the  Bible 
doctrine,  or  in  any  other  theory  of  the  origin  of  the 
world  ?  ”  The  answer  must  be  “  Yes  ”  ;  religion  has  a 
very  deep  stake — one  of  the  deepest  stakes — in  this 
doctrine  of  creation.  It  is  always  a  safe  thing  to  assume 
that  there  is  no  great  doctrine  of  Scripture  in  which 
religion  has  not  a  deep  and  vital  interest.  Let  no  one  be 
tempted  to  make  light  of  any  one  of  these  doctrines,  or 
to  barter  them  away  on  the  ground  that  they  are  of  no 
great  importance.  What  is  the  interest  of  religion  in 
this  doctrine  of  creation  ?  It  is  that  faith  requires  above 
all  things  the  assurance  that  everything  in  the  world — 
in  the  universe — is  absolutely  under  the  power  and 
control  <pf  God  ;  and  you  cannot  have  this  assurance 
unless  on  the  view  which  the  Bible  gives,  that  every¬ 
thing  has  been  brought  into  being  by  God,  and  depends 
on  Him  for  its  continuance. 

56 


Creation  and  Providence 


Suppose  it  were  otherwise.  Suppose  there  was  some¬ 
thing  in  this  world  which  God  did  not  create — some 
eternal  matter ,  for  instance,  as  theorists  have  imagined, 
which  existed  independently  of  God,  and  lay  outside  of 
His  power.  Then  see  what  follows.  Here  is  something 
which  is  uncreated,  which  has  existed  from  eternity, 
which  exists  by  a  necessity  of  its  own  nature,  which 
exists  by  as  good  a  right  as  God  Himself — something, 
therefore,  over  which  God  has  no  control.  You  have 
this  resisting,  refractory  element  in  the  world,  and  you 
have  no  guarantee  that  God’s  purpose  will  not  be 
thwarted,  defeated,  or,  at  any  rate,  limited  and  broken,  by 
it.  Where  the  doctrine  of  creation  comes  in  is  to  assure 
us  that  there  is  nothing  of  this  kind  in  the  whole  universe. 
Everything  that  exists,  seen  and  unseen,  is  there, 
because  God  has  brought  it  into  being  ;  and  God  has  the 
most  absolute  control  of  that  which  He  has  created. 
Human  wills  can  resist  God ;  but  it  is  He  who  has 
endowed  them  with  their  freedom,  and  He  prescribes  the 
limits  within  which  they  are  permitted  to  exercise  it. 
Because  of  this  faith  can  look  confidently  up  and  say : 
“  My  help  cometh  from  the  Lord,  who  made  heaven  and 
earth  ”  (Ps.  cxxi.  2). 

Faith,  therefore,  it  will  be  seen,  has  a  vital  stake  in 
this  doctrine  of  creation.  It  knows  that  all  things  are 
at  God's  disposal ;  that  there  is  nothing  outside  the  sphere 
of  His  agency;  that  everything  is  at  His  command,  to 
be  used  for  the  execution  of  His  will. 

The  New  Testament  carries  this  doctrine  still  further. 
You  remember  how  much  stress  is  laid  in  the  New 
Testament  on  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  had 
His  part  in  the  work  of  creation.  “  In  Him  were  all 
things  created  ...  In  Him  all  things  consist,”  or 
hold  together  (Col.  i.  16,  17)  :  He  is  the  beginning — the 
origin  and  principle — of  creation,  and  He  is  its  end 

57 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

(“  Through  Him  ” — “  Unto  Him  ”  ;  cf.  John  i.  2  ;  Col.  i. 
15-17;  Heb.  i.  2,  10;  Rev.  iii.  14,  &c.).  Christ  had  to 
do  therefore,  with  the  creation ;  this  means  that  the 
created  world  is  in  the  hands  of  our  Saviour  as  well  as  of 
our  Father. 

II. 

The  next  thing  I  wish  to  say  about  this  doctrine  is 
that  the  Bible  doctrine  of  creation  is  an  absolutely  unique 
doctrine.  It  is  a  doctrine  which  belongs  to  the  religion  of 
the  Bible,  and  to  no  other  religion  in  the  world.  It  is 
important  to  bring  out  this  uniqueness  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Bible.  I  do  not  think  it  is  commonly  brought  out 
with  half  the  emphasis  it  ought  to  be.  If  it  were 
brought  out  more,  there  would  be  far  less  difficulty  and 
trouble  in  many  people’s  minds  ;  for  they  would  see  in 
every  one  of  these  doctrines  the  signature  of  God  Him¬ 
self,  a  uniqueness  that  points  to  a  divine  origin.  This 
is  true  of  the  doctrine  of  creation  as  well  as  of  every 
other.  You  take  up  books  on  other  religions,  and  read  a 
great  deal  in  them  about  creation.  You  take  up  the  old 
Babylonian  epic  of  creation,  and  you  read  there  of 
Merodach  the  Creator.  You  find  the  word  “  Creator  ” 
scattered  over  the  Babylonian  hymns.  But  in  these  it 
means  something  very  different  from  what  it  does  in  the 
Bible  story.  In  the  Babylonian  epic  the  poem  begins, 
in  fact,  with  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  gods,  or  of 
the  oldest  of  them,  from  the  chaotic  deep.  You  see  you 
are  in  a  totally  different  region  from  what  you  are  in  the 
Bible. 

It  is  the  same  with  other  systems  of  religion  and  with 
philosophic  theories.  In  these  systems  and  theories  you 
have  a  great  variety  of  speculations.  The  world  is 
viewed  either  as  eternal,  which  is  the  Atheistic  view  ;  or 
is  made  out  of  an  eternally  pre-existing  matter  which  God 

‘  58 


Creation  and  Providence 


works  up  into  form,*'  which  is  the  Platonic  view  ;  or  you 
find  the  idea  of  two  principles — a  good  principle  and  an 
evil  principle — contending  together  (Dualism),  which  is 
the  old  Zoroastrian  or  Parsic  view.  The  Zoroastrian  set 
down  all  that  was  bad  and  harmful  in  the  world  to  the 
evil  principle,  and  credited  all  the  good  in  the  world  to 
the  good  principle  ;  and  this  strife  is  ever  going  on.  It 
was  overlooked  that  good  and  evil  in  nature  are  but 
relative  terms  (e.g.,  fire  burns  and  cooks  our  food  ;  the 
sun  fructifies,  but  also  scorches),  and  that  an  eternal 
principle  which  is  only  evil  is  not  an  ethical  principle  in 
the  proper  sense  at  all  :  is  hardly  different  from  a  baneful 
nature-force.  Then,  again,  there  are  the  many  forms  of 
theory  already  spoken  of  (Pantheistic)  in  which  there  is 
a  confounding  of  the  world  with  God.  The  world  is 
simply  a  manifestation  of  God.  God  is  the  “  world- 
soul,”  or  the  world  is  regarded  as  proceeding  from  God 
by  a  kind  of  evolutionary  process  or  logical  necessity — 
all  things  flowing  from  the  nature  of  God,  to  use  a  figure 
of  Spinoza’s,  with  the  same  necessity  as  the  properties 
of  a  triangle  flow  from  the  nature  of  the  triangle. 

Over  against  all  these  doctrines  and  theories  you  find 
in  the  world  about  the  origin  of  things — many  of  them 
having  their  recrudescence  in  our  own  day — stands  in  its 
grand  simplicity  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Many  are 
the  crude  speculations  that  crop  up  from  time  to  time 
in  regard  to  nature  and  creation.  One  of  the  most 
marvellous  in  recent  years  is  that  which  bears  the  name 
of  “  Christian  Science,”  Though  it  is  difficult  for  most 
people  to  see  either  Christianity  or  science  in  it.  What 
one  does  discover,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  I  am  dealing 
with,  is  that  this  world  which  the  Bible  speaks  of  as  the 
creation  of  God  is,  on  the  new  theory,  an  illusion  of  our 
“  mortal  mind,”  whatever  precisely  that  may  be.  I  think 
it  is  a  very  “  mortal  mind  ”  indeed  from  which  that  idea 

59 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

came.  It  is  very  strange,  is  it  dot,  that  human  beings 
should  happen  to  be  all  affected  by  this  illusion  alike  ; 
and  that,  as  science  shows,  the  world  should  have  been 
there  for  long  ages  before  there  was  any  “  mortal  mind  ” 
to  think  of  it !  But  in  regard  to  all  these  theories  which 
have  been  named,  it  is  unwise  to  think  of  them  as  now 
outside  of  practical  range.  They  are  just  the  kind  of 
things  that  are  being  served  up  under  new  names,  though 
in  reality  they  are  as  old  as  the  hills  ;  only  the  old-time 
people  did  not  know  better,  whereas  we  ought  to  know 
better  with  our  Bibles  in  our  hands. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  then,  I  repeat,  stands  out 
amidst  all  these  doctrines  as  something  quite  different 
and  absolutely  unique.  As  against  these  theories  the 
Bible  declares  : — 

1.  That  the  world  is  not  eternal,  but  had  a  beginning 
in  time.  This  truth  is  becoming  continually  the  more 
evident  the  more  we  grow  to  understand  what  the 
world  is.  Science  itself  has  introduced  a  word  to 
express  the  idea  that  the  world  is  in  the  position  of  a 
clock  running  down — constantly  working  off  its  energy. 
It  calls  it  “entropy.”  There  will  comean  end  to  the 
world.  Similarly,  when  you  go  backwards,  you  come  to 
a  beginning — a  nebulous  fire-mist,  or  something  of  the 
kind,  the  origin  of  which  science  cannot  explain.  Where 
does  the  fire-mist,  or  its  atomic  constituents,  come  from  ? 
Only  creation  can  give  the  answer. 

2.  Then  the  world  is  distinct  from  God,  not  in  the 
sense  that  the  world  is  not  from  God,  and  that  His 
presence  and  power  are  not  everywhere  manifested  in  it 
— that  all  the  life  and  power  in  it  are  not  derived  from 
Him  (immanence) — but  in  the  sense  that  the  world  is 
still  not  God,  but  is  the  product  of  His  free  creative  act, 
distinguished  by  God  from  Himself  in  the  very  act  of 
creating  it.  This  is  the  line  which  separates  a  true 

60 


Creation  and  Providence 


Theism  from  Pantheism.  God  is  not  simply  the  life,  or 
soul,  or  inner  law  of  the  world,  but  has  His  own 
eternally-complete  life  above  the  world,  and  in  in¬ 
dependence  of  it  (transcendence).  He  is  “  over  all,”  as 
well  as  “  through  all,  and  in  all”  (Eph.  iv.  6). 

3.  It  follows  that  this  world  is  not  the  product  of 
necessity — of  any  necessary  emanation  or  logical  unfolding 
of  God’s  Being — but  is  the  result  of  a  free  act  of  Plis 
wisdom  and  power  :  something  which  exists  because  He 
chose  for  ends  of  holiness  and  love  to  call  it  into  exist¬ 
ence.  It  need  not  be  added  that  the  only  power  adequate 
to  such  a  work  is  Almighty  power — omnipotence. 

4.  Last  of  all,  the  doctrine  teaches  that  the  matter 
as  well  as  the  form  of  the  world  is  the  creation  of  God. 
There  is  nothing  left  outside  of  God’s  creative  power. 
The  first  verse  of  Genesis  gives  the  deepest  philosophy 
of  the  whole  subject :  “  In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.”  This  is  what  is  meant 
when  it  is  said  that  God  made  all  things  “  out  of 
nothing.”  The  expression  has  sometimes  been  ridiculed, 
as  if  meant  that  “  nothing  ”  was  a  kind  of  stuff  out  of 
which  God  shaped  the  world.  The  youngest  Sunday- 
school  child  is  not  so  foolish  as  to  be  unaware  that 
that  this  is  not  the  meaning  intended.  What  the 
expression  means  is  simply  that  God  brought  this  world 
into  being  where  there  was  no  world  before ;  where 
nothing  before  existed.  As  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews 
says:  “The  worlds  have  been  framed  by  the  word  of 
God,  so  that  what  is  seen  hath  not  been  made  out  of 
things  which  appear  ”  (Heb.  xi.  3  ;  cf.  Ps.  xxxiii.  6). 

III. 

It  will  not  be  expected  that  I  should  enter  at  length 
here  into  the  disputed  questions  as  to  the  relation 
of  the  Biblical  accounts  of  creation  to  modern  science , 

61 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

but  I  may  at  least  indicate  what  I  take  to  be  the 
right  point  of  view  in  these  matters.  There  are 
those  who  profess  to  make  light  of  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis.  I  do  not.  The  man  who  makes  light  of  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  does  not  very  well  know  about 
what  he  speaks.  I  grant  at  once  that  it  is  no  part  of  the 
function  of  Biblical  revelation  to  anticipate  the  dis¬ 
coveries  of  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries — to 
tell  us  beforehand — e.g.,  what  geology  has  brought  to 
light  regarding  the  age  of  the  earth,  or  the  precise 
order  of  its  formations.  When  the  Bible  does  speak  of 
these  things,  or  describes  natural  phenomena,  it  does  so 
in  plain,  popular  language,  just  as  we  ourselves  do  every 
day  in  speaking  of  the  sun’s  rising  and  setting.  What  the 
Bible  does  is  not  to  anticipate  the  discoveries  of  later 
ages,  but  to  tell  us  about  the  relation  of  God  to  the 
world,  and  to  convey  those  great  truths  of  its  origin  and 
ordering  which  are  necessary  as  the  basis  of  a  true 
religious  view  of  the  world,  no  matter  to  what  stage 
knowledge  or  science  may  attain.  When,  accordingly, 
we  look  at  the  great  ideas  which  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  is  intended  to  teach — still  more,  when  we  com¬ 
pare  them  with  the  fantastic  legends  found  in  other 
religions — we  can  have  little  difficulty  in  seeing,  I  think, 
that  they  have  their  origin  in  that  Spirit  of  revelation 
which  was  in  Israel,  and  in  no  lower  source. 

What  are  these  great  ideas  which  stand  in  the  forefront 
of  this  record  in  Genesis  ? 

1.  As  already  said,  there  is  the  great  truth  that  there 
is  One  sole  Creator  of  the  world — God.  Put  that  over 
against  all  forms  of  polytheistic  religion,  and  remember 
that  the  world  was  fidl  of  polytheism  when  this  chapter 
was  written. 

2.  There  is  the  truth  that  the  world  is  not  eternal,  but 
that  God  in  the  beginning  created  it ;  “  He  spake  and  it 

62 


Creation  and  Providence 

was  done ;  He  commanded,  and  it  stood  fast  ”  (Ps.  xxxiii. 
9-) 

3.  It  tells  us,  and  this  is  important,  that  the  world 
originated,  not  in  a  single  creative  act,  but  in  a  series  of 
divine  acts ;  a  series  ascending  higher  and  higher,  and 
culminating  in  the  creation  of  man. 

4.  It  tells  us  that  man  was  made  in  God’s  image,  and 
unites  in  himself  both  nature  and  spirit ;  that  he  is  the 
crown  of  nature,  but  at  the  same  time  the  link  between 
nature  and  a  higher  spiritual  world — between  nature  and 
God. 

Now,  take  these  ideas,  and  I  think  it  will  be  granted 
that  not  one  of  them  comes  into  conflict  with  science  : 
that,  on  the  contrary,  where  the  two  spheres  touch,  they 
perfectly  coincide,  and  corroborate  each  other. 

But  I  venture  to  go  further.  I  have  said  that  it  is  not 
the  function  of  the  Genesis  chapter  to  anticipate  the 
discoveries  of  modern  science.  But  this  is  not  to  say 
that  it  contradicts  them.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  does. 
There  is  evidence  rather  of  a  singular  and  profound 
agreement.  Take  almost  any  book  that  has  been  written 
on  the  relation  between  the  first  chapter  on  Genesis  and 
geology — such  an  old  book,  e.g.,  even  as  Hugh  Miller’s 
Testimony  of  the  Rocks — and,  without  entering  into 
details,  the  very  fact,  it  seems  to  me,  that  it  is  possible 
to  present  the  two  series  of  things,  the  Biblical  and  the 
geological,  alongside  of  each  other  as  is  done  in  these 
books,  and  to  show  so  large  and  marvellous  an  amount  of 
harmony  between  them,  is  of  itself  an  evidence  that  we 
are  in  presence  of  something  wholly  unusual.  Could  the 
same  be  done  with  any  other  “  cosmogony”  or  story  of 
creation  in  existence  ?  This  writer  in  Genesis  has  clearly 
the  right  point  of  view,  and  so  true  is  the  insight  yielded 
by  the  Spirit  of  revelation  into  the  ascending  order  of 
nature,  that  there  is  marvellously  little  in  this  primitive 

63 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

picture  of  creation — I  take  it  to  be  one  of  the  oldest 
things  in  the  Bible — that  is  not  in  harmony  with  what 
our  own  most  advanced  science  teaches.  To  all  time  this 
Genesis  picture  will  remain  a  wonder ,  not  for  its  disagree¬ 
ment  with  science,  but  for  its  marvellous  accuracy.  With 
it  in  his  hands,  the  simplest  peasant  is  wiser  than  all  his 
teachers  on  the  great  subjects  of  which  it  treats,  if  the 
teachers  are  those  who  ignore  or  despise  its  lessons. 

There  is  one  question  more.  Does  not  this  doctrine  of 
creation,  it  may  be  said,  come  at  any  rate  into  conflict 
with  the  great  reigning  theory  of  evolution ,  particularly 
in  the  denial  by  the  latter  of  what  are  called  “  special 
creations”?  I  cannot  discuss  that  subject  fully  here. 
But  a  suggestion  or  two  may  be  offered.  I  freely  admit 
that  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  creation  does  come  into 
conflict  with  such  a  theory  of  evolution  as  the  late 
Dr.  Darwin  promulgated.  But  science  has  long  come 
to  see  that  “  Darwinism  ”  and  “  evolution  ”  are  not 
synonymous  terms  ;  and  all  down  the  line  leading 
representatives  have  taken  up  a  stand  against  the  evo¬ 
lution  of  fortuity — the  evolution  that  excludes  design, 
and  brings  in  chance  in  nature  to  do  the  work  of 
mind.  It  was  not  long  before  his  death  that,  at  the 
close  of  a  scientific  lecture  in  London,  the  late  Lord 
Kelvin,  the  most  eminent  scientific  man  of  his  time, 
made  the  declaration  that  science  did  not  deny  creative 
power,  but  affirmed  the  necessity  of  an  organising  and 
directive  intelligence  in  nature. 

So  far,  in  truth,  from  the  Biblical  doctrine  coming 
into  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  furnishes  that  doctrine  with  its  necessary  limits. 

(i)  There  is  the  initial  limit  of  origins.  No  theory  of 
evolution  can  get  over  that.  However  far,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  you  carry  back  your  process,  you  come  to 
a  point  at  which  you  must  begin.  If  it  is  a  fiery,  gaseous 

64 


Creation  and  Providence 


cloud  you  start  with,  you  have  to  explain  your  gaseous 
cloud.  If  it  is  atoms  you  start  with,  you  have  to  ex¬ 
plain  your  atoms.  Atoms  are  not  engendered  by  a 
process  of  natural  selection.  They  are  there  in  their 
countless  multiplicity,  stamped  and  fixed  with  their 
unchanging  characteristics,  bearing  on  them,  as  Clerk 
Maxwell  said,  all  the  marks  of  “  manufactured  articles.” 
If  you  try  to  get  behind  atoms  to  “sub-atoms,”  and  to 
electric  strains  in  ether,  it  is  the  same  thing.  How  came 
these  wonderful  “  strains  ”  to  be  there,  the  equivalents 
of  the  old  atoms,  only  infinitely  more  complicated  in 
their  structure  ? 

(2)  Next,  there  are  the  limits  imposed  by  the  rise  of 
new  kingdoms.  Evolution  has  never  yet  explained  the 
transition  from  the  inorganic  to  the  organic  (non-vital 
to  vital),  from  the  insentient  to  the  sentient,  from  animal 
consciousness  to  human  rationality.  It  is  significant  that 
it  is  just  at  such  points  as  the  original  creation  of  matter, 
the  introduction  of  animal  life,  and  the  creation  of  man, 
that  the  old  Hebrew  narrator  uses  the  word  bara,  which 
expresses  the  idea  of  true  creation — the  production  of 
something  new  and  higher  by  the  direct  act  of  God 
(Gen.  i.  1,  21,  27). 

(3)  There  is  the  limit  set  to  evolution  by  the  law  of 
kinds.  For  evolution  is  not,  after  all,  a  ceaseless  flux. 
Variation  is  not  absolutely  indefinite.  Its  limits  are  soon 
reached,  and  there  is  a  constant  tendency  to  revert  to 
type.  There  are  “  terminal  points  ”  along  the  different 
lines  beyond  which  evolution  cannot  go.  The  Bible 
affords  the  necessary  check  to  error  here  by  its  insistence 
on  the  creation  and  propagation  of  “  kinds  ”  (Gen.  i.  11, 
12,  21,  24). 

With  due  recognition  of  the  determinative  activity  of 
God  in  the  rise  of  new  kingdoms,  or  orders  of  existence, 
and  the  production  of  new  types  or  kinds,  there  is 

65  F 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

nothing  in  evolution  that  need  conflict  with  a  doctrine 
of  “  creation,”  provided  the  co-operation  of  secondary 
causes  is  not  excluded. 


IV. 

From  creation  I  advance  to  speak  of  the  providence 
of  God.  The  world  which  God  has  made  He  also 
rules.  The  providence  of  God  extends  to  everything. 
Little  as  well  as  great  is  embraced  in  it.  It  includes 
all  persons,  all  events,  and  all  actions.  Human  free 
actions,  even  human  crimes,  are  taken  up  into  it,  and 
overruled  for  the  accomplishment  of  God’s  wise  ends. 

That  Scripture  teaches  this  consoling  doctrine  of  an 
all-embracing  providence  of  God  hardly  needs  proof.  The 
passages  which  affirm  it  are  innumerable.  We  have 
general  statements,  as,  “  Whatsoever  the  Lord  pleased, 
that  hath  He  done  in  heaven  and  in  earth”  (Ps.  cxxxv. 
6)  ;  “  He  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men  to  dwell  on  all 
the  face  of  the  earth,  having  determined  their  appointed 
seasons,  and  the  bounds  of  their  habitations  ”  (Acts  xvii. 
26).  And  particular  declarations,  as,  “  He  healeth  the 
broken  in  heart,  and  bindeth  up  their  wounds.  He 
counteth  the  number  of  the  stars  ;  He  calleth  them  all 
by  their  names  ”  (Ps.  cxlvii.  3,  4)  ;  “  A  man’s  heart 
deviseth  his  way,  but  the  Lord  directeth  his  steps”  (Ps. 
cxxxv.  6) ;  “  Not  one  of  them  [a  sparrow]  shall  fall  to 
the  ground  without  your  Father  ”  (Matt.  x.  29) ;  “  Casting 
all  your  anxiety  on  Him,  because  He  careth  for  you” 
(1  Pet.  v.  7).  Many  psalms,  chapters,  and  sections  of  dis¬ 
course  have  providence  as  their  theme,  as  Ps.  civ.  (nature), 
Ps.  cxxi.  (human  life),  Prov.  xvi.  (conduct),  Matt.  vi.  25- 
34)  (Sermon  on  the  Mount).  Generally,  this  doctrine 
is  the  implication  of  the  whole  of  the  Bible,  in  history, 
precept,  exhortation,  warning,  threatening.  The  history 
of  Joseph  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  with  its  wonderful 

66 


Creation  and  Providence 


overruling  of  a  long  train  of  events  to  a  specific  end,  and 
the  often-despised  Book  of  Esther,  are  conspicuous 
examples.  The  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  brought  about 
through  the  worst  passions  of  men,  is  an  example  still 
more  striking  and  awful.  “  Delivered  up,”  Peter  says, 
“by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God  ” 
(Acts  ii.  23).  “  Gathered  together,  to  do  whatsoever  Thy 

hand  and  Thy  counsel  foreordained  to  come  to  pass  ” 
(iv.  28). 

1.  Here  many  questions  arise.  One  point  which  has 
often  been  raised  is  as  to  the  relation  of  providence  to 
what  we  call  natural  law.  There  are  those  who  will  have 
it  that,  while  there  is  what  they  style  a  general  providence 
of  God,  that  is,  an  administration  of  the  world  under 
fixed  general  laws,  there  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  what  the 
Christian  speaks  of  as  a  special  providence,  that  is,  a 
providence  which  concerns  itself  with  the  details  of 
human  life  and  of  history — which  cares  for  the  individual, 
answers  his  prayers,  and  seeks  his  particular  good.  God, 
it  is  held,  has  placed  the  world  under  these  general  laws, 
which  roll  on  and  grind  out  their  infallible  results, 
beneficent  in  the  main  ;  but  the  details  must  take  care 
of  themselves.  You,  in  the  details  of  your  life,  are  at 
the  mercy  of  these  laws.  What  you  can  do  if  you  wish 
to  escape  harm  is  to  get  out  of  the  way  of  them,  or 
better,  to  bend  them  to  your  advantage.  In  no  case  do 
they  bend  to  you.  Many  smile  when  they  hear  of  God 
answering  a  man’s  prayers.  How  can  He  do  it  ?  These 
laws  of  His  bind  His  hands,  and  it  is  impossible  for  Him 
to  come  down  into  the  details  of  men’s  lives,  and  help 
them.  On  this  view,  when  God  has  established  His 
laws,  His  work  is  done ;  the  details  must  look  after 
themselves. 

What  I  wish  to  say  about  this  is,  that  I  think  it  is  a 
very  poor  and  superficial  view  of  God  which  it  involves.  It 

67 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

is  plainly  not  Christ’s  teaching,  nor  the  general  teaching 
of  the  Bible.  There  it  is  constantly  assumed  that  God 
has  all  causes  and  all  agencies  at  His  disposal,  and  that 
the  particular  effects  which  these  work  out  are  not  of 
chance  or  of  necessity,  but,  even  in  their  minutest  details, 
are  the  results  of  His  wise  ordering  (Matt.  x.  29,  30).  And 
this  surely  is  the  truest  view  to  take  even  philosophically. 
It  is  a  paltry  conception,  this  theory  of  a  God  who  looks 
after  the  generalities  of  things,  but  does  not  attend  to  the 
details.  Apply  the  theory  to  earthly  affairs.  Who  does  not 
know  that  any  one  conducting  a  business,  or  managing 
a  public  concern,  if  he  acted  on  these  principles,  attending 
to  generals,  but  not  looking  after  details,  would  soon  find 
himself  in  a  very  undesirable  position,  and  would  prob¬ 
ably  end  in  the  bankruptcy  court  ?  We  have  a  proverb  ; 
“  Take  care  of  the  pence,  and  the  pounds  will  take  care  of 
themselves.”  There  is  such  a  thing,  no  doubt,  as  being 
penny-wise  and  pound-foolish;  but  it  is  likewise  true  that, 
unless  you  attend  to  details,  you  will  not  bring  out  of  the 
whole  the  result  you  want.  Specially  when  one  reflects 
that  it  is  often  on  the  so-called  little  things  of  life  that  the 
greatest  consequences  in  the  lives  of  individuals  and  the 
history  of  nations  depend — that  the  actions  of  men,  and 
through  them  the  whole  after-history  of  the  world,  have 
often  been  determined  by  what  look  like  the  merest 
accidents — he  will  see  that  the  denial  of  a  providence  of 
God  in  what  we  regard  as  the  minutice  of  life  is  really  the 
denial  to  God  of  a  world-plan  altogether. 

I  do  not  suppose  that  many  who  read  these  pages  have 
the  least  doubt  that  God  does  exercise  a  continuous  and 
beneficent  and  omnipotent  providence  over  their  lives,  and 
that  He  does  answer  their  prayers  in  matters  temporal  as 
well  as  matters  spiritual,  according  to  His  will.  But  the 
question  will  still  be  asked:  “ How  is  such  a  special 
providence  possible  ?  How  are  these  general  laws  in 

68 


Creation  and  Providence 


nature  to  be  harmonised  with  such  a  providence,  and 
with  answers  to  prayers  ?  ” 

There  is  one  consideration  which  may  help  at  least 
to  throw  some  light  upon  the  difficulty,  if  it  does  not 
remove  it  altogether.  It  is  not  the  case,  as  the  objection 
assumes,  that  you  can  explain  anything  in  nature  by 
simple  reference  to  the  general  laws  involved.  General 
laws  of  themselves  do  nothing  in  bringing  about  particular 
results.  Besides  the  general  laws,  there  has  to  be  taken 
into  account  the  way  in  which  things  are  put  together — 
the  way  in  which  they  are  combined  and  co-operate.  Dr. 
Thos.  Chalmers  used  the  word  “  collocation  ”  to  express 
this  fact,  and  the  idea  was  taken  up  by  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill, 
and  by  him  introduced  into  scientific  logic  (see  his  System 
of  Logic ,  Bk.  Ill;  ch.  12,  2,  &c.).  Chalmers  said: 
There  are  two  things  involved  in  the  explanation  of 
any  facts  of  nature  ;  there  are  the  laws  of  God’s 
appointing,  and  there  is  the  collocation  of  these  laws. 

Take,  in  illustration,  a  machine.  You  have  a  machine 
designed  for  the  production  of  certain  results — a  printing- 
press,  or  whatever  it  may  be.  But  in  order  to  get  the 
results  you  require  not  only  the  materials  and  general 
laws ;  you  must  get  the  parts  and  forces  properly  adjusted 
so  that  they  will  work  together  to  produce  these  results. 
The  machine  is  the  product  of  man’s  mind  in  putting  the 
materials  together  to  effect  this  end.  And  what  man  can 
do  in  combining  laws  and  forces  to  accomplish  his  ends, 
surely  God,  in  His  larger  providence,  can  do  to  work  out 
the  results  He  desires.  Man,  besides,  does  not  merely 
make  his  machine  and  set  it  agoing.  There  is 
commonly  also  a  hand  upon  the  machine,  guiding  it  in  its 
work.  It  is  not  really  otherwise  in  God’s  government  of 
the  world.  God  has  placed  the  world  under  general  laws, 
but  He  has  not  thereby  abdicated  His  control  of  it. 
There  is  not  a  detail  which  flows  from  the  operation  of 

69 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

these  laws  under  His  guidance  which  is  not  part  of  His 
infinitely  wise  ordering,  in  view  of  the  whole,  and  of  each 
individual  life  affected  by  their  working.  This  is  some¬ 
times  expressed  by  saying  that  a  “  mechanical  ”  view  of 
the  world  (a  view  which  regards  the  causes  at  work),  does 
not  exclude  a  “  teleological  ”  (a  view  which  regards  the 
ends  of  the  working). 

The  one  thing  we  can  always  be  sure  of  on  this  point 
is  that  God  has  not  tied  His  hands  in  His  own  universe, 
so  that  He  cannot  hear  the  cry  of  His  children,  or  help 
them  in  their  time  of  need.  Our  prayers,  indeed,  are 
always  supposed  to  be  prayers  according  to  the  will  of 
God,  offered  in  submission  to  His  higher  wisdom,  where 
we  may  be,  as  we  often  are,  in  ignorance,  or  mistaken. 
The  most  earnest  believer  in  prayer  does  not,  e.g.,  believe 
or  expect  that  God  will  make  water  flow  uphill  at  his 
request.  That  is  a  petition  he  would  not  be  likely  to  get 
answered.  What  he  prays  for  he  leaves  to  God  to  do  for 
him  in  His  own  time  and  way,  in  harmony  with  the  laws 
He  has  established.  He  knows  he  has  to  do  with  a 
Father  whose  resources  are  infinite,  who  knows  in  every 
case  what  it  is  best  to  give  and  to  withhold. 

2.  This  is  the  sphere  of  nature,  but  a  yet  greater  diffi¬ 
culty  arises  in  connection  with  the  relation  of  providence 
to  free  actions,  especially  to  actions  that  are  evil.  Does 
God’s  plan  embrace  these,  and  if  so,  in  what  sense  ? 
Now,  that  God’s  plan  includes — that  is,  foresees,  and 
takes  up  into  itself — human  free  actions,  even  those  of 
wicked  men,  we  have  seen  that  all  Scripture  testifies. 
The  Crucifixion  of  Christ  is  again  the  signal  example 
(Acts  iv.  28).  How  this  is  possible  may  be  made  a  little 
clearer  if  we  reflect  that  at  every  point  human  free  will  is 
only  one  element  in  a  larger  situation.  Man  acts  freely 
in  the  situation  in  which  he  is  placed,  but  how  many 
threads  of  providence  enter  into  the  weaving  of  that 

70 


Creation  and  Providence 


situation.  The  slightest  change  of  conditions  at  any 
point,  and  that  situation  would  never  have  emerged,  or 
that  act,  with  all  its  consequences,  have  eventuated.  Two 
persons,  e.g.,  are  thrown  together  by  seeming  accident, 
and  form  a  friendship  which  determines  their  future  rela¬ 
tions  to  each  other  for  life,  and  the  future  of  a  posterity 
springing  from  them.  A  slight  change,  and  these 
persons  might  never  have  met ;  would  possibly  have  met 
others  ;  and  the  lines  of  the  future,  involving  innumerable 
volitions,  would  have  been  different  to  the  end  of  time. 

Then  what  of  sinful  actions  ?  We  are  accustomed 
with  regard  to  these  to  use  the  term  “  permit,”  and 
rightly.  But  it  is  needful  to  remember  that  here  also 
bare  “  permission  ”  does  not  exhaust  the  whole  relation 
of  God’s  providence  to  sinful  acts.  Providence  is  per¬ 
mission,  indeed ;  yet  such  as,  in  the  words  of  an  old  docu¬ 
ment,  “  hath  joined  with  it  a  most  wise  and  powerful 
bounding,  and  otherwise  ordering  and  governing  of 
them,  in  a  manifold  dispensation,  to  His  own  holy  ends  ” 
(West.  Conf.).  God  makes  even  the  wrath  of  man  to 
praise  Him,  and  the  remainder  of  wrath  He  restrains  (Ps. 
lxxvi.  io).  Evil  is  the  sinner’s  own,  but  the  wicked  man 
grievously  deceives  himself  if  he  thinks  that  by  his 
rebellion  he  can  get  out  of  his  Creator’s  hands.  Refusing 
to  serve  God  in  one  way,  he  will  find  himself  forced  to 
serve  Him  in  another. 


71 


Man  and  Sin :  Man’s  Nature 
and  Original  Condition 


Man  and  Sin:  Man’s  Nature 
and  Original  Condition 


FROM  the  doctrines  of  creation  and  providence  I  pass 
to  speak  of  the  doctrines  of  man  and  sin.  The 
doctrine  of  sin  lies  at  the  foundation  of  a  right 
understanding  of  the  doctrine  of  redemption.  To  under¬ 
stand  a  remedy  you  must  understand  the  disease  it  is 
meant  to  cure.  If  sin  be  only  a  pin-scratch  on  the 
surface  of  man’s  nature,  the  remedy  needed  for  it  will  be 
correspondingly  slight.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  sin  is 
what  the  Bible  declares  it  to  be — a  terrible  and  soul- 
destroying  evil — then  the  greatest  miracle  and  most 
stupendous  sacrifice  in  the  universe  was  required  to 
effect  man’s  salvation  from  it.  But  the  doctrine  of  sin, 
again,  rests  on  a  right  conception  of  the  nature  of  man. 
With  that,  accordingly,  I  begin. 

I. 

It  was  pointed  out  that  the  doctrine  of  God  in  the 
Bible  was  a  unique  doctrine,  and  that  the  doctrine  of 
creation,  as  flowing  from  the  doctrine  of  God,  was  not 
less  unique.  It  is  now  to  be  shown  that  the  Bible  doctrine 
of  man  has  the  same  character  of  uniqueness.  It  is  a 
doctrine  which  stands  altogether  by  itself.  The  Bible 
exalts  man  and  abases  him  as  no  other  religion  on  earth 
does — exalts  him  in  picturing  him  as  made  in  the  image 

75 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

of  God,  and  capable  of  eternal  life ;  abases  him  in 
setting  forth  the  depths  of  his  apostasy  from  God,  and 
his  inability  to  deliver  himself  from  the  misery  and  ruin 
into  which  it  has  plunged  him.  It  will  be  seen  as  we 
proceed  that  this  doctrine  stands  in  vital  connection  with 
all  the  other  parts  of  divine  truth  in  the  Bible. 

It  may  be  proper  to  begin  by  speaking  for  a  little  on 
what  the  Bible  has  to  say  of  man's  place  in  creation.  We 
touch  here  a  subject  on  which  it  will  be  recognised  that 
there  is,  and  can  be,  no  conflict  between  the  Bible  and 
science.  According  to  the  Bible,  man’s  place  is  at  the 
summit  of  creation.  He  is  the  last  and  highest  of  God’s 
created  works — the  goal  and  consummation  of  the  whole 
creative  process.  When  you  turn  to  science,  you  find  the 
same  affirmation,  expressed  in  almost  the  same  terms. 
Evolutionary  philosophy  has  no  cavil  to  make  here. 
For  it,  also,  man  is  the  last  and  highest  product  of 
nature.  He  stands,  as  in  the  Bible,  at  the  head  of 
creation,  is  the  microcosm  of  it,  gathers  up  into  himself 
all  that  has  gone  before,  is  the  apex  of  creation.  It  is 
not,  so  far  as  I  know,  expected  by  anyone  that  man  will 
ever  develop  into  something  specifically  different  from,  or 
higher  than,  the  humanity  we  know.  All  further 
development,  whatever  its  nature,  is  always  assumed  to 
be  within  humanity. 

Another  point  on  which  there  would  seem  to  be  no 
longer  any  difficulty  or  disagreement  possible  between 
the  Bible  and  science  is  the  unity  of  the  human  race. 
There  was  a  time,  not  so  long  ago,  when  scientific  men 
were  accustomed  to  speak  of  “  centres  of  creation.” 
They  advocated  the  view  that  there  were  separate  centres 
of  creation  of  the  race  of  man,  and  that  the  creation  of 
the  Bible  was  the  creation  only  of  the  “  Adamic  ”  race. 
This  view,  thanks,  it  must  be  owned,  chiefly  to 
evolutionary  science,  is  now  mostly  gone.  That  man  was 

7^ 


Man  and  Sin 


made  male  and  female,  and  that  from  an  original  single 
pair  the  whole  human  race  has  descended,  is  the 
universal  verdict  of  science.  It  is  a  very  singular 
thing  that,  while  science  was  disputing  about  the  unity 
of  man,  the  Bible  was  affirming  it  all  the  time  (Acts 
xvii.  26). 

But  there  is  something  more  to  be  said.  If  we  take 
the  complete  Bible  view  of  man,  we  find  that  man  not 
only  stands  at  the  summit  of  nature,  but  stands  also 
above  nature ,  as  belonging  to  a  higher  spiritual  realm.  If 
man,  on  the  lower  side  of  his  being,  is  linked  with  organic 
nature,  sums  it  up  in  himself,  is  its  crown  and  apex,  it  is 
not  less  true  that,  on  another  side  of  his  being,  he  is,  as 
Bushnell  finely  argues  in  his  work,  Nature  and  the  Super¬ 
natural,  supra-natural — is  linked  with  a  higher  spiritual 
order,  belongs  to  a  higher  spiritual  world,  in  which  he 
finds  his  true  life.  He  is,  as  Herder  said,  “  the  middle 
link  between  two  systems  of  creation.”  He  binds  them 
together,  and  holds  them  in  his  own  person  as  a  unity. 
Does  not  this  fit  in  most  beautifully  with  the  structure  of 
Bible  revelation  in  all  that  it  teaches  about  the  destiny 
of  man,  and  the  place  which  our  humanity  now  holds  in 
the  universe  through  Christ  ?  It  will  be  remembered 
what  is  said  on  this  subject  in  Eph.  i.  and  Heb.  ii.  It  is 
the  purpose  of  God,  we  are  told,  “  to  sum  up  all  things 
in  Christ  ”  (Eph.  i.  10).  Christ  stands  there  in  our 
humanity,  connecting  all  the  parts  of  the  universe 
together.  All  things  are  put  in  subjection  under  His 
feet  (v.  22).  The  writer  of  Hebrews  quotes  the  eighth 
psalm,  and  says  :  “  We  see  not  yet  all  things  subjected  to 
him  [man]  .  But  we  behold  Him  [Jesus] 
crowned  with  glory  and  honour”  (Heb.  ii.  5-9).  Christ 
thus,  ruling  in  our  humanity,  unites,  or  will  unite,  the 
whole  redeemed  universe  in  His  own  person  ;  and  it  is 
because  of  this  constitution  of  man’s  nature,  uniting  the 

77 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

physical  with  the  spiritual,  that  he  is  fitted  to  occupy  this 
position  in  God’s  creation. 


II. 

The  Scripture  represents  this  truth,  in  the  narrative  of 
creation,  in  speaking  of  man  as  made  in  the  image  of  God. 
That  is  the  great  fundamental  affirmation  of  the  Bible  about 
man,  as  determinative  of  his  nature,  his  position  in  God’s 
world,  and  relation  to  God  Himself.  In  Genesis  i.  this 
declaration  is  introduced  in  a  very  remarkable  way.  The 
language  used  prepares  us  for  something  new  and  excep¬ 
tional.  The  chapter  has  been  speaking  of  God’s  succes¬ 
sive  acts  of  creation.  Then  comes  a  pause,  and  you  have 
God  (Elohim)  taking  counsel  with  Himself:  “  God  said, 
Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness  ;  and 
let  them  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over 
the  birds  of  the  heavens,  and  over  the  cattle,”  &c.  (v.  26). 
It  is  not  a  case  of  converse  with  inferior  beings,  as  with 
angels.  That  notion  has  been  mooted.  But  you  have  to 
notice  that  there  is  nothing  said  about  angels  in  this  first 
chapter  of  Genesis.  The  whole  doctrine  of  angels  is 
undeveloped  in  this  early  period.  You  seldom  read  of 
angels,  except  in  the  case  of  the  “  Angel  of  the  Lord,” 
who  was  not  a  created  angel.  It  is  not  angels,  it  is  God 
Himself,  who  is  here  conversing  with  Himself  about  His 
own  divine  deeds  ;  and  that  is  an  aspect  of  the  matter, 
on  which,  as  formerly  observed,  you  do  not  get  light  fully 
thrown  till  you  come  to  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  God,  then,  is  here,  taking  counsel  with 
Himself,  and  in  the  succeeding  verse  you  have  the 
declaration  that  this  counsel  is  carried  out  :  “  And  God 
created  man  in  His  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God 
created  He  him  ;  male  and  female  created  He  them  ” 
(v.  27). 

This,  then,  is  the  grandest,  deepest,  most  fundamental 

78 


Man  and  Sin 


utterance  in  all  the  Bible  about  man ;  it  underlies  the 
whole  doctrine  of  man,  and  nearly  every  other  doctrine  in 
the  Bible.  So  we  have  now  to  ask  :  What  is  this  image 
of  God  in  which  man  was  created  ?  What  do  we  mean  by 
it  ?  What  does  it  cover  ? 

(i)  We  may  be  very  clear  that  by  the  image  of  God  is 
not  to  be  understood  anything  relating  to  man’s  bodily 
form.  It  is  not  material  shape  that  constitutes  man  the 
image  of  God,  for  God  has  no  bodily  form.  This  was  the 
very  ground  on  which  the  Israelites  were  forbidden  to 
make  an  image  of  God,  because  they  saw  no  similitude 
(Deut.  iv.  15).  God  has  no  form  ;  He  is  a  Spirit  without 
bodily  parts. 

Then  (2)  we  cannot  place  this  image  of  God  merely  in 
man's  dominion  over  the  creatures.  This  was  the  old 
Socinian  idea.  If  there  was  any  poorer  interpretation 
than  another  to  be  given  of  a  verse,  the  old  Socinians 
were  sure  to  get  hold  of  it.  So  this  was  their  notion  of 
the  image  of  God.  The  sovereignty  of  man  over  the 
creatures  is  indeed  included  in  the  image.  Man  is  an 
image  of  God  in  the  dominion  he  exercises  ;  but  this  is 
not  the  primary  sense  of  the  expression.  It  is  because 
man  possesses  the  rational  and  moral  attributes  in  which 
he  spiritually  resembles  God  that  he  is  capable  of  exercis¬ 
ing  his  sovereignty. 

This  leads  us  (3)  to  the  position  that  the  image 
of  God  in  man  is  to  be  sought,  not  in  something 
outward,  but  in  something  inward ;  not  in  something 
relative,  but  in  something  essential  to  man’s  being ; 
in  something  stamped  primarily  upon  the  soul,  or 
spiritual  nature  of  man.  And  this  we  see,  when  wre  look 
into  it,  to  be  the  truth.  The  image  of  God  is  that  in 
which,  in  distinction  from  the  creatures  below  him,  man 
resembles  God,  in  which  he  is  like  God.  No  distinction  is 
to  be  made  between  the  terms  “  image  ”  and  “  likeness,” 

79 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

as  is  seen  by  the  fact  that  in  verse  27  “  image”  covers 
both.  But  that  resemblance  can  only  be  found  in  what 
man  is  as  spirit.  Man  is  the  image  of  God  in  the  world 
because  he  is  a  spiritual  being ;  an  intelligent  and  moral 
being;  a  self-conscious ,  personal  being.  He  has  rationality  ; 
he  has  a  moral  nature  ;  he  has  moral  knowledge,  moral 
affections,  moral  will.  In  this  respect,  as  rational  and 
moral  personality,  he  is,  in  the  very  essence  and  concep¬ 
tion  of  his  being,  the  image  of  his  Creator,  of  the  Per¬ 
sonal  God,  of  the  all-wise,  all-knowing  God,  of  the  holy 
God. 

If  this  be  the  true  view  to  take  of  man’s  nature,  then 
we  see  that  man  in  this  world  stands  alone  as  bearing  the 
image  of  God.  “  No,”  someone  will  perhaps  say,  “look 
at  the  animals  ;  they  also  have  intelligence.”  And  no 
doubt,  when  we  look  at  the  animals,  we  find  that  they  do 
possess  something  which  we  can  properly  describe  as 
intelligence.  All  the  same,  I  think  it  can  be  very  clearly 
shown  that  the  difference  between  man  and  even  the 
highest  of  the  animals  is  not  a  mere  difference  of  degree, 
but  a  difference  of  kind . 


III. 

Here  we  come  into  conflict  with  a  section  of  evolutionist 
opinion.  In  reply  to  the  statement  just  made  as  to  man’s 
relation  to  the  lower  animals,  the  evolutionist  comes  in, 
and  says  :  “  No,  you  have  intelligence  also  in  animals, 
and  man’s  intelligence  is  simply  a  development  out  of 
that  lower  intelligence,  by  slow  gradations,  till  we  reach 
man,  with  all  the  faculties  he  now  possesses.”  This  view 
is  not  advocated  by  all  evolutionists,  but  it  is  advocated 
by  a  great  many.  A  good  example  of  it  is  found  in  the 
popular  book  on  “  Man’s  Destiny,”  by  the  late  Mr.  John 
Fiske.  The  secret  of  Mr.  Fiske’s  method  lies  very  much 
in  his  use  of  the  word  “  comes.”  Man  begins  away  down 

80 


Man  and  Sin 


among  the  apes;  then  there  “comes  ”  to  be  a  family  of 
apes  that  have  some  glimmering  of  intelligence  above 
their  fellows  ;  out  of  this  there  “  comes  ”  a  particularly 
happy  strain,  which  acquires  the  faculty  of  language  ; 
earlier  or  later,  through  the  prolongation  of  infancy  and 
other  causes,  there  “  comes  ”  to  be  a  development  of  the 
natural  affections  ;  finally  there  “  comes  ”  all  the  pleni¬ 
tude  of  power  and  faculty  in  arts  and  civilisation  we  have 
in  existing  man.  No  doubt  it  “comes  ”  ;  but  the  whole 
problem  is  precisely  there.  How  does  it  come  ?  One  is 
reminded  of  what  the  Book  of  Exodus  tells  of  Aaron, 
when  Moses  rebuked  him  for  making  the  golden  calf.  “  So 
they  (the  people)  gave  it  to  me ;  and  I  cast  it  into  the 
fire,  and  there  came  out  this  calf”  (Ex.  xxxii.  24).  It 
just  “  came  out !  ” 

Seriously,  I  challenge  this  whole  conception  of  the 
evolutionary  growth  of  man’s  mind  from  the  lower 
animals.  If  it  is  asked,  Where  is  the  distinction  ?  I 
would  reply,  in  the  first  place,  that  man  only  is  in  the 
true  sense  a  person.  There  attaches  to  his  nature,  and  to 
his  nature  alone,  the  sanctity  of  personality.  “  Whoso 
sheddeth  man’s  blood,”  we  read,  “  by  man  shall  his 
blood  be  shed  ;  for  in  the  image  of  God  made  He  man” 
(Gen.  ix.  6).  Man  alone  is  capable  of  self-conscious 
reflection  ;  of  turning  his  mind  back  upon  himself,  and 
saying  “  I.”  He  alone  possesses  the  power  of  rational 
thought,  in  the  stricter  sense  of  that  word.  Is  this 
getting  metaphysical  ?  Is  it  asked  :  What  do  you  mean 
by  rational  thought  ?  I  answer  :  Man  alone  possesses 
the  faculty  of  rising  above  the  particular,  and  laying  hold 
on  the  universal  element  in  thought  and  things.  Man 
alone,  by  general  consent,  has  the  powers  of  abstraction 
and  generalisation.  He  alone  has  the  power  of  laying 
hold  of  the  principle  in  the  facts  ;  of  the  law  in  the 
particulars  ;  of  rising  from  one  truth  to  a  higher  truth, 

8l  G 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

from  one  law  to  a  wider  law,  and  ultimately  to  the  idea 
of  the  infinite,  of  the  eternal,  of  God.  There  is  no  animal 
on  earth  that  possesses  these  powers. 

If  this  is  still  doubted,  it  is  only  necessary  to  look  at 
the  different  outcome  of  their  respective  natures  to  see 
how  marked  is  the  distinction  between  the  animals  and 
man.  The  animal  can  do  many  things,  but  it  never 
rises  above  its  animality,  above  its  earthly  being.  When 
you  turn  to  man,  you  do  find  him  rising  above  his  earthly 
existence.  Man  has  reflective  self-consciousness.  He  is 
possessed  of  the  faculty  of  intelligent,  rational  speech. 
He  has  the  capacity  of  education  and  of  progress.  He 
is  capable  of  self-directed,  intelligent  life ;  can  set 
intelligent  ends  before  him,  and  work  them  out ;  can  set 
moral  ends  before  him,  and  through  his  freedom  realise 
them.  Man  alone,  therefore,  is  capable  of  morality  in 
the  true  sense  of  the  word ;  alone  is  capable  of  religion ; 
alone  is  capable  of  fellowship  with  God  ;  alone  is  capable 
of  receiving  into  his  soul  the  eternal  life.  Between  a 
being  of  whom  such  things  can  be  said  and  the  animals 
there  is  a  dividing  line  not  of  degree,  but  of  kind.  There 
is  a  spirit  in  man,  not  found  in  the  animals,  which  lifts 
him  above  the  world  altogether.  The  possession  of  such 
a  nature  carries  with  it  the  other  thought,  that  man  is  not 
destined  for  life  in  this  world  alone.  He  is  made  for 
immortality. 


IV 

There  is  yet  another  thing  which  must  be  observed 
about  man  before  passing  from  this  subject  of  his  nature. 
It  follows  from  the  view  already  given  of  man  as  the  link 
between  two  worlds,  the  natural  and  the  spiritual,  that 
man  is  a  compound  being.  Man  is  not  what  we  may 
suppose  the  angels  to  be — pure  incorporeal  spirit.  He  is 
incorporated  spirit.  He  is  made  up,  as  we  say,  of  soul 

82 


Man  and  Sin 


and  body  (Matt.  x.  28),  and  both  of  these  elements 
enter  into  the  conception  of  his  nature.  Both  are 
essential  elements  in  his  personality.  The  Bible  usage  in 
regard  to  these  terms  is,  indeed,  somewhat  different  from 
our  own.  A  special  interest  attaches  to  the  Biblical 
terms  “soul”  and  “spirit.”  In  the  Old  Testament, 
“  soul  ”  (nephesh)  is  the  seat  of  life  and  personality  in  man 
— on  the  one  hand  the  animating  principle  or  “life”  ot 
the  body  (“  the  soul  is  in  the  blood,”  Lev.  xvii.  11),  and 
source  of  the  animal  appetites,  desires  and  passions  ;  on 
the  other,  the  source  of  the  higher  rational  and  spiritual 
activities — those  which  belong  to  man  as  a  personal, 
moral,  and  religious  being.  It  is  these  latter  activities 
which,  in  Biblical  phraseology,  are  specially  denominated 
“spirit”  ( ruach ).  The  soul,  in  other  words,  is  the  source 
of  two  classes  of  activities — the  animal,  connected  with 
the  body,  and  the  spiritual,  in  which  lies  man’s  proper 
affinity  to  God.  It  is  the  presence  of  the  soul  in  the  body 
which  constitutes  it  “flesh.”  One  result  follows,  of 
great  importance  for  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  man. 
“  Soul,”  in  the  Bible,  always  has  the  implication  of  a 
“  body.”  There  may  be  spirits  which  have  no  bodies, 
but  they  are  not  “  souls.”  On  the  other  hand,  souls,  as 
having  a  spiritual  nature,  can  properly,  when  disembodied, 
be  called  “  spirits.”  The  “  spirits  in  prison  ”  in  1  Pet. 
iii.  19,  are  spirits  or  souls  of  men. 

These,  then,  are  the  two  essential  parts  of  man’s  com¬ 
pound  nature — soul  and  body — and  God  never  intended 
them  to  be  separated.  This  sheds  an  important  light  on 
the  Biblical  idea  of  death.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  hear 
death  spoken  of  as  a  universal  law  of  nature.  No 
difficulty  need  be  raised  on  this  point  as  regards  the 
animals.  The  animal  has  its  life  here  and  nowhere  else. 
Death  is  its  natural  fate.  But  it  is  different  with  man. 
Man  is  a  spiritual  being,  and  God  never  meant  that  the 

83 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

body  and  soul  of  man,  these  two  constituent  elements  in 
his  personality,  should  be  rent  asunder.  In  the  Biblical 
point  of  view,  therefore,  death  is  not  natural  to  men.  It 
is  something  that  has  come  in  ;  a  disruption,  a  tearing 
asunder,  a  separation  of  parts  of  his  being  that  God  never 
meant  to  be  separated.  The  Bible  has  no  sympathy 
with  that  ultra-spirituality  which  looks  on  the  body  as  the 
prison-house  of  the  soul,  to  be  got  rid  of  as  soon  as 
possible,  and  which  places  man’s  hope  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  alone.  It  nowhere  regards  the  disembodied 
state  as  a  state  of  full  and  perfect  life.  It  is  in  the  Old 
Testament  a  state  of  gloom  ;  and  the  prayer  of  the  saint 
is  to  be  delivered  from  it.  “  God  will  redeem  my  soul 
from  the  power  of  Sheol,  for  He  will  receive  me  ”  (Ps. 
xlix.  15  ;  cf.  xvi.  10).  Even  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  a 
state  of  imperfect  existence.  “  Waiting  for  our  adoption, 
to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body  ”  (Rom.  viii.  23).  The 
redemption  of  the  Gospel  is  not  a  redemption  of  the  soul 
only,  but  the  redemption  of  the  whole  man — body  and 
soul  together. 


V. 

Why  then,  it  will  naturally  be  asked,  if  death  is  a 
contradiction  of  the  true  idea  of  man,  is  death  present  in 
the  world  at  all  ?  At  this  point  a  very  vital  question 
arises,  which  may  form  the  transition  from  the  doctrine  of 
man  to  the  doctrine  of  sin.  It  is  the  question  of  the 
conception  we  are  to  form  of  man's  original  condition.  I 
have  spoken  of  the  image  of  God  in  man  as  exhibited  in 
his  essential  constitution — rational,  moral,  spiritual.  But 
is  this  the  whole  ?  Does  the  possession  of  the  image  of 
God  by  man  imply  simply  the  possession  of  these  moral 
and  spiritual  capacities  ;  or  does  it  imply  also  actual 
moral  resemblance  to  God  ?  Does  it  imply  not  only  the 
elements  of  a  rational  and  moral  nature,  but  a  state  o 

84 


Man  and  Sin 


actual  harmony  of  the  affections  and  will — a  purity  of 
nature,  an  uprightness  of  will,  which  made  sinless 
obedience  possible  ?  The  state  supposed  would  be  an 
elementary  one,  no  doubt,  but  was  man,  as  created  by 
God,  a  pure  being  ?  It  seems  to  me  that,  reasoning  on 
general  grounds,  we  should  unhesitatingly  say.  Yes.  For 
what  kind  of  image  of  God  would  that  be  in  which  every¬ 
thing  was  originally  blurred,  everything  distorted  and 
disfigured  ?  This  also,  it  seems  plain  to  me,  is  implied  in 
the  story  of  man’s  creation,  of  Eden,  of  man’s  fall.  It 
is  the  fact,  I  am  convinced,  that  underlies  the  whole  Bible 
idea  of  sin  ;  it  is  the  idea  expressed  also  in  many  parts  of 
scripture.  “God  made  man  upright”  (Ecc.  vii.  29). 
Through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
through  sin  ”  (Rom.  v.  12). 

Here,  then,  we  come  to  a  crucial  point.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  this  which  I  have  called  the  Bible  doctrine 
about  man’s  original  state  goes  right  across  the  track  of  a 
great  deal  of  our  modern  speculation  about  man’s  origin 
and  primitive  moral  condition.  The  teaching  of  most  of 
our  modern  evolutionists  on  this  point  is  well  known,  and 
has  already  been  hinted  at.  Man  has  sprung  from  some 
species  of  anthropoid  ape  (not  now  existing),  and  through 
favourable  variations,  natural  selection,  and  survival  of 
the  fittest,  through  immensely  long  periods  of  time,  has 
been  gradually  changed  into  the  image  he  now  bears. 
Thus  God  introduced  man  into  the  world.  He  begins 
away  down  below  anything  we  would  now  call  man.  He 
is  a  semi-animal ;  immersed  in  brutishness ;  ruled  and 
swayed  by  unbridled  passions ;  only  a  glimmering  of 
reason  shedding  its  fitful  ray  across  the  chaotic  deep  of 
his  soul.  This  is  the  “primitive  man”  science  would 
have  us  accept.  Many  who  advocate  these  views  speak 
much  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  It  is  a  strange  idea  of 
Fatherhood  which  can  accommodate  itself  to  this 

85 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

conception.  Is  God  the  Father  of  man,  or  is  He  of  the 
ape  also?  Where  does  the  Fatherhood  come  in  ?  What 
would  be  thought  of  any  earthly  “  father  ’’who  started 
his  children  off  in  similar  conditions  ?  The  difficulties 
of  accepting  such  a  view,  even  from  the  moral  standpoint, 
seem  insuperable.  Such  a  being  as  the  scientists  suppose 
is  not  only  in  a  non- moral  condition  ;  he  is  in  an  un- moral 
condition,  which  is  an  im-movdl  one.  For  morality 
undeniably  has  to  do  with  states  of  soul  as  well  as  with 
actions  ;  it  asks  for  a  pure  and  harmonious  state  of  the 
moral  affections,  and  an  upright  condition  of  the  moral 
will.  Of  all  this  the  theory  before  us  is  the  negation. 

I  need  not  say,  further,  that  the  acceptance  of  such  a 
theory  as  the  above  will  alter  the  whole  trend  of  our 
theology.  Men  may  well  call  it  a  “  new  theology ,”  because 
through  such  a  theory  everything  in  theology  gets 
changed.  Sin,  it  will  be  found,  changes  its  character  and 
loses  its  gravity  and  heinousness.  Guilt,  in  the  Scriptural 
sense,  practically  disappears.  For  how  can  God  condemn 
that  which  is  the  direct  and  necessarv  result  of  His  own 
handiwork  in  man  ?  Instead  of  speaking  of  the  “  fall  ”  of 
man  it  is  now  necessary  to  speak  of  the  “rise”  of  man. 
The  fall  is  a  “fall  upwards.”  Instead  of  blaming  man 
for  what  he  is,  and  speaking  of  a  divine  “  condemnation” 
resting  on  the  race,  we  can  only  marvel  at  the  marvellous 
progress  man  has  made  by  his  own  efforts.  The  old  idea 
of  redemption  must  be  given  up,  and  Christ  be  viewed 
simply  as  the  apex  of  a  universal  revolutionary  process  ! 

The  question,  however,  in  the  end  comes  to  be :  Is  the 
theory  true  ?  There  is  no  use  in  meeting  theories  which 
claim  to  be  based  on  scientific  grounds  with  denunciation 
and  ridicule.  The  theory  must  be  faced  with  facts,  if 
satisfaction  is  to  be  brought  to  thinking  minds.  The 
thing  wanted  is  the  truth.  And  if  appeal  is  made  to 
facts,  are  not  anthropology  and  evolution  against  us  ? 

86 


Man  and  Sin 


On  this  point,  as  I  said  before,  I  have  no  quarrel  with 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  as  such  ;  only  with  certain  forms 
of  it.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  that  doctrine  so  far  as  it 
is  scientifically  established.  But  this  I  do  say  with  great 
confidence,  that,  within  the  limits  in  which  it  has  been 
shown  to  have  real  scientific  basis,  evolution  does  not 
compel  us  to  accept  any  such  doctrine  of  the  origin  and 
primitive  state  of  man  as  I  have  described.  Evolution, 
as  I  said  earlier,  is  not  Darwinism,  and  the  Darwinian 
idea  of  the  production  of  man  by  slow  gradations  from 
lower  ape-like  forms  is  one  which  I  think  is  being  dis¬ 
credited  on  scientific  grounds.  Evolution,  it  is  coming 
to  be  seen  with  greater  clearness,  has  its  well-marked 
limits.  Not  only  must  it  always  be  regarded  as  having 
behind  it  creative,  organising  intelligence,  working  in  and 
through  it ;  but  it  must  make  room  within  its  process  for 
the  introduction  of  new  potencies,  new  factors,  which  can 
only  be  referred  directly  to  the  great  Creative  Cause. 

Now,  there  are  evolutionists  not  a  few  who  take  this 
ground  in  respect  of  man’s  mind.  Man’s  mind,  they  tell 
us,  cannot  be  accounted  for  without  a  special  cause  ;  but 
they  think  his  body  can.  They  hand  over  the  body  to 
the  laws  of  evolution,  and  bring  in  a  Creative  Cause  to 
explain  the  mind.  I  have  always  felt  that  there  is  a 
logical  inconsistency  in  this  supposition.  There  is  such  a 
connection  between  man’s  mind  and  man’s  body — between 
mind  and  organisation — that  the  idea  of  an  abrupt  rise  on 
the  side  of  mind  without  a  corresponding  rise  of  organism 
is  utterly  untenable.  Allow,  as  many  evolutionists  do, 
that  God’s  power  must  be  brought  in  to  explain  the  mind 
of  man,  then  you  cannot  take  this  mind  and  put  it  into 
the  brain  of  an  anthropoid  ape.  You  need  a  brain  which 
will  be  a  suitable  receptacle  for  it.  If  a  rise  takes  place 
on  the  spiritual  side  you  must  have  a  corresponding  rise 
on  the  organic  side — in  other  words,  you  must  postulate 

87 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

the  founding  of  a  new  order  of  things — a  new  kingdom  in 
humanity,  both  on  the  spiritual  and  on  the  bodily  side. 
This  just  brings  us  back  to  the  old  Bible  doctrine  of 
God’s  creation  of  man. 

When,  moreover,  you  turn  to  science,  you  find  that  the 
facts  bear  out  what  is  here  alleged.  It  is  vain  to  speak  of 
science  demonstrating  the  slow  development  of  man  from 
the  anthropoid  ape,  for  it  does  no  such  thing.  There  is 
no  proof  of  this  in  science  up  till  the  present  hour.  There 
is  no  evidence  of  any  such  gradual  process.  On  the 
contrary,  there  remains  in  nature  an  abrupt  fall  from  the 
human  brain  to  the  ape  brain,  or,  putting  it  the  other 
way,  a  sudden  rise  from  the  ape  brain  to  the  human  brain, 
which  science  cannot  bridge  over,  and  which  corresponds 
to  the  mental  and  spiritual  rise  in  man.  Go  back  as  far 
as  you  like — take  the  oldest  skulls  yet  found — )^ou  will 
find  the  poorest  of  them  matched  by  human  skulls  of  to¬ 
day,  while  some  are  skulls  which,  as  Huxley  said,  might 
have  contained  the  brains  of  a  philosopher.  We  hear, 
indeed,  from  time  to  time  of  the  discovery  of  “  The 
Missing  Link.”  There  was  the  famous  Java  case — the 
best  yet  produced — but  scientific  men  of  the  highest  rank 
early  pronounced  its  claims  unfounded. 

I  close,  then,  by  repeating  that,  so  far  as  knowledge 
goes,  there  is  no  fact  in  science  which  comes  into  conflict 
with  the  Bible  doctrine  of  the  origin  of  man,  or  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  original  purity  of  man.  For  anything 
science  has  to  say  to  the  contrary,  man  may  have  come 
from  the  hand  of  his  Creator  truly  bearing  his  image — in 
a  state  of  intellectual  soundness  and  moral  integrity — as 
the  Bible  declares  he  did  ;  and,  if  he  is  now  found  other¬ 
wise,  it  can  only  be  ascribed  to  his  voluntary  disobedience 
— to  a  “  fall.”  I  have  spoken  of  these  ancient  skulls,  and 
of  the  antiquity  assigned  to  some  of  them.  We  read  in 
books  of  500,000  years  or  200,000  years  as  the  period 

88 


Man  and  Sin 


of  man’s  abode  upon  earth.  There  is  no  need  for  Chris¬ 
tian  people  taking  alarm  at  these  exaggerated  estimates. 
Science  itself  is  rapidly  retrenching  them.  Careful  calcu¬ 
lations  based  on  the  rate  of  retrocession  of  Niagara  Falls, 
and  on  similar  facts,  show  that  these  immense  periods 
must  be  cut  down  to  quite  reasonable  dimensions.  But 
this  is  an  aspect  of  the  subject  on  which  it  is  unnecessary 
to  dwell. 


89 


VI 


Man  and  Sin : 

Man’s  Need  as  a  Sinner 


Man  and  Sin : 

Man’s  Need  as  a  Sinner 

IF  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and  originally 
bore  his  Creator’s  moral  likeness,  very  plainly  he  is 
*  not  in  that  state  now.  That  image  is  broken, 
defaced,  defiled.  Its  elements  may  be  there  in  man’s 
rational  and  moral  constitution,  but  it  has  lost  its 
character  of  actual  moral  resemblance.  The  gold  has 
become  dim ;  the  fine  gold  is  changed  (Sam.  iv.  i). 
If  this  is  the  case  a  great  change  for  the  worse  must 
have  come  over  man,  the  explanation  of  which  can  only 
be  found  in  a  “fall,”  or  voluntary  defection  from  the 
state  of  rectitude  in  which  God  created  him. 

This  is  in  truth  the  explanation  which  the  Bible  gives 
of  man’s  existing  sinful  condition.  He  is  a  fallen  being. 
Sin  is  a  fact  of  universal  experience,  and  if  there  were 
not  this  story  of  the  fall  of  man  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Bible  we  should,  for  the  explanation  of  our  own  ex¬ 
perience,  and  the  world’s  condition,  require  to  postulate 
such  a  story,  and  put  it  at  the  beginning  of  the  Bible  for 
ourselves.  So  we  may  be  glad  that  it  is  there.  It  stands 
at  the  commencement,  and  furnishes  the  key  to  that 
moral  condition  of  man  on  which  the  whole  doctrine  of 
salvation  is  built.  Without  it  man’s  sin  would  remain  an 
unsolved  riddle. 


93 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

Before  looking  at  the  origin  of  sin,  it  is  well  to  look 
carefully  at  its  nature,  and  make  sure  that  we  have  a 
clear  idea  of  what  sin  is.  Sin,  we  discover,  in  the  Bible 
sense,  is  that  which  absolutely  ought  not  to  he  in  God’s 
world.  This  cuts  the  Bible  clear  away  at  the  outset 
from  all  those  theories  which  make  sin  a  necessary  result 
of  man’s  nature  and  moral  development,  an  inevitable 
stage  in  his  progress.  The  necessity  may  be  “  meta¬ 
physical,”  or  it  may  be  “  evolutionary,”  as  when  man  is 
represented  as  starting  off  from  a  brute  condition  ;  but 
in  any  form  it  is  a  contradiction  of  the  true  idea  of  sin. 
Sin  is  that  which  ought  not  to  be  at  all.  It  has  through¬ 
out  the  Bible  a  volitional  and  catastrophic  character.  It 
is  the  tragedy  of  the  universe  ;  a  departure  from  the 
normal  in  the  history  of  the  race  ;  something  against 
which  the  holy  God  must  from  eternity  to  eternity 
declare  Himself  in  wrath  and  judgment.  It  is  the 
abominable  thing  that  God  hates  (Jer.  xliv.  4).  That  is 
the  idea  of  sin  which  pervades  all  Scripture. 

If  we  inquire,  further,  into  the  principle  or  essence  of 
this  evil  thing — sin — we  can  best  understand  it  by  its 
contrast  to  the  good.  The  principle  of  good-willing  is 
love  to  God.  “  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
mind.  This  is  the  great  and  first  commandment  ”  (Matt, 
xxii.  37,  38).  Acts  springing  from  this  principle  are 
“godly,”  and  these  only,  in  the  estimate  of  God,  are 
good.  Sin,  as  the  contrast  to  this,  consists  essentially 
in  the  rejection  or  throwing  off  of  the  authority  of 
God,  and  the  taking  into  the  will  of  a  principle  which  is 
the  opposite  of  this — the  principle  of  self- will,  of  life  for 
self,  or,  as  we  may  express  it,  of  egoism.  Sin  is  not 
simply  the  choice  of  the  world  instead  of  God,  though 
it  includes  this,  but  is  something  deeper — the  setting  up 
of  self  as  an  end  or  law  to  self,  in  place  of  making  God’s 

94 


Man  and  Sin 


will  our  law.  Instead  of  life  being,  as  it  ought  to  be,  a 
life  from  God  to  God,  it  is  now  a  life  from  self  to  self. 
God’s  law  is  to  be  obeyed  only  so  far  as  it  suits  self  to 
obey  it.  Sin,  therefore,  as  the  Bible  constantly  affirms, 
is  in  essence  godlessness.  It  is  the  setting  up  of  a  false 
independence  of  the  creature,  and  results  in  the  soul’s 
passing  over  from  love  of  God  to  love  and  service  of  the 
world.  “Give  me  the  portion  of  thy  substance  that 
falleth  to  me,”  said  the  Prodigal  to  his  father  (Luke  xv. 
12)  ;  then,  when  he  got  his  desire,  he  went  into  the  “far 
country  ”  (ver.  13).  Here  is  the  eternal  history  of  sin  in 
its  essence  and  results. 

The  egoistic  principle  which  lies  in  all  sin  is  not  indeed 
always  equally  manifest,  and  seldom  is  permitted  to 
reveal  itself  in  its  full  enormity.  Its  presence  and 
operation,  in  actual  life,  may  be  manifoldly  veiled.  There 
are  checks  and  forces  of  many  kinds  in  nature  and 
society— the  action  of  conscience,  restraints  of  public 
opinion,  force  of  custom,  considerations  of  prudence, 
influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  counteract  its 
working  and  hinder  its  visible  manifestation  ;  which, 
therefore,  hide  from  the  subject  of  it,  and  from  the  on¬ 
looker,  its  real  character  and  heinousness.  In  social 
sins — e.g.,  the  element  of  good  fellowship  and  joviality  may 
conceal  the  egoism  that  lurks  behind.  The  principle  is 
there,  however,  and  leers  out  in  the  heartless  selfishness 
of  the  drunkard  or  profligate.  Just  in  proportion  as  sin 
develops,  its  God-denying  and  self-exalting  principle 
becomes  more  apparent.  In  spiritual  sins,  as  pride, 
covetousness,  envy,  it  is  more  manifest  than  in  fleshly  sins. 
In  more  advanced  wickedness,  as  malice,  hate,  deliberate 
cruelty,  its  diabolic  character  is  revealed  without  disguise. 
Finally,  in  open  and  conscious  hate  and  blasphemy  of 
God  its  ultimate  principle,  as  “  enmity  against  God  ” 
(Rom.  viii.  7),  is  laid  bare. 


95 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 


ii. 

If  this  be  the  inward  principle  of  sin,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  see  how  terrible  and  ruinous  must  be  its  effects.  One 
of  the  first  effects  is  necessarily  -  the  subversion  of  the 
normal  constitution  of  man’s  nature,  in  which  reason, 
conscience,  and  the  fear  of  God  ought  to  rule,  and 
the  raising  to  a  position  of  undue  ascendency  of  the 
lower  and  sensuous  impulses.  From  being  “  spiritual,” 
man  becomes  “  psychical” — “soulish.’  Not  only, 
however,  are  these  lower  principles  raised  to  wrongful 
ascendency.  Sin,  which  cut  the  bond  between  the 
soul  and  God,  cuts  also  the  bond  between  the 
principles  in  the  soul  itself,  so  that  these  principles, 
which  before  worked  together  in  due  subordination  and 
harmony,  now  work  in  disorderly  ways  (Rom.  vii.  5).  We 
have  now  disorder,  turbulence,  anarchy,  in  the  soul — a 
state  of  “lawlessness”  ( anomia ),  as  the  Scripture  some¬ 
times  describes  it  (1  John  iii.  4,  R.V.).  As  a  result,  there 
is  a  bondage  of  the  spirit  to  the  lower  or  carnal  impulses, 
so  that  even  when  man  would  do  good,  he  feels  himself 
impotent.  The  “law  of  the  mind”  may  make  its 
protests,  but  the  “  law  of  sin  and  death  ”  prevails 
(Rom.  vii.  14-25.) 

The  natural  and  inevitable  result  of  sin,  therefore,  is  a 
depravation  of  the  whole  nature.  The  “  depravity  ”  of 
human  nature,  still  more  the  assertion  of  “total” 
depravity,  is  a  doctrine  loudly  protested  against  by  the 
enlightenment  of  modern  times.  Man,  it  is  declared,  is 
essentially  good.  There  is  a  divine  spark  within  him, 
which  only  needs  to  be  developed.  “  Depravity  ”  is  a 
libel  on  his  nature.  It  is  not  questioned  that  depraved 
men  exist,  but  they  are  the  wretches  of  humanity,  and 
do  not  represent  the  general  condition.  Depravity,  all 
the  same,  is  a  dark  and  terrible  fact.  There  is  no  man 

96 


Man  and  Sin 


living  who  is  not  “very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness.”  The  doctrine  in  question  is,  indeed, 
misunderstood  when  the  adjective  “  total  ”  is  held  to 
imply  that  every  human  being  is  as  bad  as  he  can  be,  or 
that  there  are  not  natural  virtues,  and  even  beautiful  and 
lovable  traits  in  characters  that  are  yet  unregenerate. 
This  would  contradict  experience.  Jesus,  beholding  the 
young  ruler,  “  loved  ”  him  (Mark  x.  21).  Paul  testifies 
that  “the  barbarians”  of  Melita  showed  him  “no 
common  kindness  ”  (Acts  xxviii.  2).  Paul  himself,  before 
his  conversion,  was  upright  and  sincere.  “  Total  ”  here 
does  not  mean  that  every  part  of  man  is  as  corrupt  as  it 
can  be,  but  that  no  part  has  escaped  depravation  or 
corruption  ( totus ,  in  the  sense  of  “  in  every  part  ”).  Sin 
is  in  the  nature,  and  its  perverting,  depraving,  defiling 
influences  pervade  it  all.  Life  is  poisoned  in  its  springs ; 
the  fountain  in  the  heart  is  “evil  ”  (Matt.  xv.  19). 

III. 

If  this  is  a  true  description  of  sin,  and  of  the  state  of 
human  nature  under  its  influence,  it  needs  no  proof  that 
sin  cannot  be  a  thing  willed  by  God,  or  part  of  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  world  as  God  made  it.  We  are  brought 
back,  therefore,  to  the  point  from  which  we  started,  in 
the  idea  of  a  fall.  The  same  thing  follows  from  the 
universality  of  sin — its  presence  and  reign  in  all  humanity. 
There  is  no  truth  on  which  the  Bible  is  more  emphatic, 
or  which  experience  more  clearly  confirms,  than  that  sin 
is  universal.  “  For  all  have  sinned,  and  fall  short  of  the 
glory  of  God”  (Rom.  iii.  23).  Such  defection  must  be 
carried  back  to  the  beginning  of  the  race,  else  how 
should  all  the  streams  in  the  family  of  mankind  be  im¬ 
pure  ?  It  is  sometimes  objected  that  the  idea  of  a  fall  is 
unknown  to  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  after  the 

97 


H 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

third  chapter  of  Genesis.  It  would  be  truer  to  say  that 
it  is  the  presupposition  on  which  the  whole  picture  of  a 
world  turned  aside  from  God,  and  in  rebellion  against 
Him,  in  the  Old  Testament,  rests  (cf.  Gen.  vi.  5,  6,  11, 
12;  viii.  21  ;  Ps.  xiv.,  &c.).  The  story  of  the  fall  stands 
at  the  beginning,  where  it  should  be,  and  rules  the  entire 
description  of  mankind  that  follows. 

The  narrative  of  the  fall  in  Genesis,  therefore,  is  no 
myth,  but  a  deep,  historical  truth,  which  no  critical 
theories,  or  differences  in  the  mode  of  interpretation,  can 
ever  touch.  It  is  not  an  invention,  but  the  record  of  a 
catastrophe  that  really  happened  in  the  beginning  of  the 
history  of  our  race,  the  shuddering  memory  of  which  was 
never  lost  in  the  grey  ages  of  primitive  humanity.  We 
have  already  seen  how  much  of  that  primitive  history 
science  and  discovery  themselves  tend  to  restore.  The 
unity  of  the  race,  man  as  made  in  God’s  image,  the  need 
of  special  creative  action  to  account  for  man’s  mental 
and  bodily  endownenls,  the  very  scene  of  his  origin — for 
no  region  can  be  pointed  to  for  the  origin  of  man  so 
likely  as  just  this  neighbourhood  of  the  Euphrates  and 
Tigris,  in  which  Eden  was  situated — the  presumption  of 
his  original  purity,  &c.  That  man  knew  God  in  the 
beginning,  and  that  he  was  placed  by  God  under  a 
dispensation  suited  to  his  condition,  involving  tests  of  his 
obedience,  for  the  furtherance  of  his  moral  development ; 
that  life  would  have  been  the  result  of  his  fidelity,  and 
that  death  (foreign  to  his  nature),  with  all  the  other  evils, 
inner  and  outer,  that  sin  entails,  was  the  issue  of  his 
failure — this  seems  to  be  the  most  reasonable  explanation 
we  can  even  yet  give  of  the  actual  state  in  which  the 
world  is  found.  It  is  at  least  the  explanation  which 
Scripture  gives  in  both  Old  Testament  and  New  (Gen. 
ii.  15-17  ;  iii. ;  Rom.  v.  12  ff;  1  Tim.  iii.  13,  14).  It 
suits  modern  thinking  to  deny  the  “fall”;  to  speak 

98 ' 


Man  and  Sin 


rather  of  “rise  ”  and  “development  ”  ;  but  this  depends 
on  views  of  the  origin  and  primal  condition  of  man  which 
have  already  been  rejected. 

One  feature  in  this  Genesis  story  of  the  fall  of  man  we 
cannot  ignore — viz.,  that  sin  entered  our  world  not 
wholly  through  man’s  own  act,  or  through  bare  solicita¬ 
tions  of  sense,  but  through  the  temptation  of  an  evil  super¬ 
human  power.  That  this  is  the  real  meaning  of  the  tempta¬ 
tion  by  the  serpent — take  it  literally,  or  take  it  symbolically, 
as  one  will — I  cannot  doubt.  It  is  also  the  interpretation 
put  on  the  event  by  later  Scripture,  which  recognises  the 
existence  of  an  evil  spiritual  world,  with  “  Satan,”  or 
“  the  Devil,”  described  as  the  prince,  or  god,  or  ruler  of 
this  world,  at  its  head,  continually  active  in  withstanding 
good  and  ensnaring  into  sin  (cf.  John  i.  6  jf.,  ii.  i  ff. ; 
Zech.  iii.  i,  2 ;  Matt.  iv.  1-11  ;  xii.  23-29  ;  xiii.  19  ; 
John  viii.  44,  xiv.  30,  xvi.  11  ;  2  Cor.  iv.  4;  Eph.  ii.  2, 
vi.  12;  Rev.  xii.  9,  &c,).  That  the  serpent  in  Genesis  is 
not  simply  the  animal,  but  is  identified  with  this  power 
of  evil,  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  this  serpent  not 
only  talks,  but  talks  evil,  insinuates  distrust  of  God’s 
word,  and  tempts  to  disobedience.  No  such  wickedness 
belonged  to  God’s  good  creation.  The  truth  taught  is 
that  it  is  not  on  earth  only  that  evil  is  met  with.  There 
is  a  spiritual  kingdom  of  evil  older  than  man,  the  agencies 
of  which  are  mysteriously  permitted  to  operate  in  our 
world,  with  which  every  man  has,  as  Jesus  Himself  had, 
to  contend  in  his  struggle  for  the  good.  It  is  enough  for 
the  guarantee  of  this  truth  as  against  modern  denials  that 
we  find  it  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  as  one  of  His 
deepest  certainties.  I  feel  assured  that  in  a  matter  so 
vitally  connected  with  His  mission  Jesus  was  not,  and 
could  not  be,  in  ignorance  or  error. 


99 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 


IV. 

The  fall  into  sin  of  the  first  man  had  necessarily  its 
effects  on  his  posterity.  Here  we  encounter  the  mysteri¬ 
ous  fact  of  racial  sin,  or,  as  it  is  more  commonly  called, 
original  sin,  with  the  other  evils  that  flow  to  the  race 
from  the  transgression  of  its  natural  head.  “Through 
one  man,”  Paul  says,  “sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 
death  through  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for 
that  all  sinned”  (Romans  v.  12).  In  the  succeeding 
verses  the  Apostle  dwells  on  the  representative  position 
of  Adam,  through  whose  one  offence  the  many  were 
made  sinners  (v.  19),  to  illustrate  the  principle  on  which 
righteousness  and  life  come  to  us  through  Christ. 

A  great  difficulty  is  naturally  often  felt  here  ;  for  how  is 
this  subjection  of  a  whole  race  to  sin  and  death  for  the 
offence  of  its  first  progenitor  to  be  justified  under  the 
government  of  a  good  and  holy  God  ?  The  only  ground, 
I  would  reply,  on  which  it  can  be  justified  is  by  taking 
into  account  the  organic  constitution  of  the  race.  Science 
comes  here  to  our  help  with  its  doctrine  of  heredity,  and 
the  increasing  stress  it  lays  on  the  organic  unity  of 
mankind ;  but  the  fact  itself  is  evident.  There  are,  so 
far  as  we  can  judge,  only  two  principles  on  which  con¬ 
clusively  a  moral  society  could  be  constituted.  One  is 
the  principle  of  strict  individualism  —  each  individual 
created  separately,  and  standing  or  falling  by  himself, 
with  strictly  limited  responsibility.  Such,  we  may 
suppose,  is  the  constitution  of  the  angels  (Matt.  xxii.  30). 

But  humanity  is  constituted  on  a  different  principle — * 
the  organic.  Here  there  is  a  race  evolved,  in  successive 
generations,  from  a  single  head,  in  whom,  at  the 
beginning,  the  whole  race  was  potentially  contained.  In 
itself  this  constitution  is  the  most  beneficent  of  all. 
Designed  for  good,  it  hands  down  benefits  to  the  well- 

100 


Man  and  Sin 


doers  in  ever  increasing  ratio.  On  the  other  hand,  when 
sin  enters,  it  is  as  if  an  engine  were  reversed,  and  the 
powers  that  wrought  for  good  become  as  potent  to  hand 
down  evil.  Hence  the  inevitable  ruin  of  the  fall.  The 
disturbance  introduced  by  the  first  sin,  the  loss  of 
original  righteousness,  the  alienation  from  God  which 
ensued,  could  not  stop  with  the  first  transgressor.  The 
effects  descend.  Through  our  connection  with  the  fallen 
stock,  we  each  bring  with  us  into  the  world  a  tainted 
nature,  a  propensity  to  evil,  a  tendency  to  resistance  to 
the  law  and  the  authority  of  God,  which  early  manifests 
itself  in  actual  transgression.  The  gifts  and  graces  which 
man  possessed  while  he  stood  in  his  integrity  are  wanting 
to  us.  There  is  an  evil  nature,  which  calls  for  a  com¬ 
plete  renewal,  if  man  is  to  be  made  holy  (Ps.  li.  5,  10  ; 
Ezek.  xi.  ig). 

The  state  into  which  the  fall  has  brought  man  is  one 
of  depravation  and  bondage,  but  even  this,  with  the  actual 
sin  which  proceeds  from  it,  does  not  sum  up  the  whole 
misery  of  man’s  condition.  There  is  yet  to  be  taken  into 
account,  as  completing  the  view  of  sin,  the  awful  fact  of 
guilt.  Sin  is  not  simply  disease  and  slavery  ;  it  is  wrong¬ 
doing,  disobedience,  transgression  of  law,  and,  as  such, 
is  condemnable  and  punishable.  Every  sinner,  in  his  own 
conscience,  is  aware  that  sin  is  not  an  innocuous  thing ;  that 
he  is  answerable  for  it  to  God  ;  that  it  is  something  which 
exposes  him  to  God’s  righteous  judgment.  He  feels  him¬ 
self  guilty .  However  bravely  he  may  carry  it  off  out¬ 
wardly,  in  his  inner  thoughts  he  cannot  escape  the 
feeling  of  self-blame,  reproach,  the  stings  of  remorse,  the 
fear  of  coming  wrath.  The  heathen,  Paul  says,  “  show 
the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  con¬ 
science  bearing  witness  therewith,  and  their  thoughts  one 
with  another  accusing  or  else  excusing  them  ”  (Rom.  ii. 
15).  The  consequence  is  that  men  naturadly  fear  God— 

101 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

dread  the  thought  of  Him.  Felix  “  was  terrified  ”  when 
Paul  reasoned  with  him  of  “the  judgment  to  come” 
(Acts  xxiv.  25). 

This  is  the  natural  sense  of  guilt.  Much  more  is  this 
consciousness  of  guilt  intensified  when  sin  is  lifted  up 
into  the  light  of  the  “  holy,  and  righteous,  and  good  ”  law 
of  God  ”  (Rom.  vii.  12).  “  If  our  heart  condemn  us,  God 

is  greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all  things  ”  (1  John 
iii.  20).  This  is  the  awful  fact  about  sin  that,  whereso¬ 
ever  and  in  whomsoever  it  is  found,  it  lays  the  soul  in 
which  it  is  found  under  the  divine  judgment .  “  What 
things  soever  the  law  saith,”  declares  Paul,  “  it  speaketh 
to  them  that  are  under  the  law ;  that  every  mouth  may 
be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may  be  brought  under  the 
judgment  of  God  ”  (Rom.  iii.  19).  From  the  very  nature 
of  His  holiness  God  must  react  against  sin  to  judge  and 
punish  it.  A  race  that  is  fallen  and  sinful  must,  by  that 
very  fact,  lie  under  a  divine  “  condemnation”  ;  and  this, 
the  Bible,  in  the  most  emphatic  terms,  declares  that  it 
does  (John  iii.  16-19,  36  ;  Rom.  v.  12-21,  vi.  23,  viii.  1, 
See.).  This  condemnation  which  rests  upon  our  world 
man  can  do  nothing  by  his  own  efforts  to  remove  (Rom. 
iii.  20). 

The  punitive  energy  of  God  put  forth  against  sin  is 
described  as  His  “wrath”  (Rom.  i.  18,  ii.  5),  and  that 
wrath  rests  on  everyone  in  the  state  of  nature  (John  iii. 
36  ;  Eph.  ii.  3).  The  judgment  which  proceeds  from 
this  wrath  is  summed  up  in  Scripture  in  the  comprehen¬ 
sive  word,  “  death”  “  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die  ”  (Gen.  ii.  17).  “  The  soul  that 

sinneth  it  shall  die”  (Ezek.  xviii.  20).  “The  wages  of 
sin  is  death  ”  (Rom.  vi.  23).  In  this  is  unquestionably 
included,  in  the  sense  of  Scripture — natural  death,  with 
all  its  attendant  miseries  and  evils  (Gen.  ii.  17,  iii.  17-19  ; 
Rom.  vi.  12) ;  for  it  has  already  been  seen  that  death  is 

102 


Man  and  Sin 


never  regarded  as  something  natural  and  normal  to  man, 
but  as  the  separation  of  two  parts  of  his  being  which  go 
to  make  up  the  complete  man  ;  which,  therefore,  God 
never  meant  to  be  sundered.  But  outward  death  is  only 
the  manifestation  and  consequence  of  something  more 
inward  and  terrible  that  had  already  taken  place — spiritual 
death  to  holiness  and  the  favour  of  God.  “The  mind  of 
the  flesh,”  Paul  says,  “is  death”  (Rom.  viii.  6).  “You 
did  He  make  alive,  when  ye  were  dead  through  trespasses 
and  sins”  (Eph.  ii.  2).  “She  that  giveth  herself  to 
pleasure  is  dead  while  she  liveth  ”  (1  Tim.  vi.  6).  But 
even  physical  death,  ensuing  on  this,  is  not  the  end,  but 
only  the  prelude.  Behind  looms  the  final  doom  of  the 
soul  in  separation  from  God  and  blessedness — eternal 
death.  After  death  comes  the  judgment  (Heb.  ix.  27). 
This  is  “the  second  death”  (Rev.  xx.  14) — the  eternal 
loss  of  the  soul ;  rather,  since  it  succeeds  the  resurrection, 
of  soul  and  body  together — of  the  whole  being  (cf.  Matt, 
x.  28). 


V. 

The  picture  thus  drawn  of  human  ruin  through  sin  is 
assuredly  most  terrible.  But  it  is  precisely  this  state  of 
depravity,  of  bondage,  of  guilt,  with  the  utter  misery  and 
helplessness  into  which  it  plunges  man  which  constitutes 
man’s  need  of  redemption ,  and  which  the  redemption  of 
the  Gospel  is  designed  to  meet,  and  does  meet  in  all  its 
parts.  It  was  before  remarked  that  there  is  no  book 
which  exalts  man  so  highly  as  the  Bible  does,  in 
representing  him  as  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and 
capable  of  eternal  life ;  and  no  book  which  abases  man 
so  utterly  in  depicting  the  depths  of  his  fall  and  apostasy 
from  God.  But  the  glory  of  the  Bible  is  that,  over 
against  the  developing  sin  and  corruption  of  the  race,  it 
presents,  almost  from  its  first  page,  the  developing 

103 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

purpose  of  God  for  man’s  salvation.  The  Bible  is,  as 
Jonathan  Edwards  called  it,  “  the  history  of  redemption.” 
It  is  the  unfolding  of  God’s  great  purpose  of  grace  for  the 
redemption  of  man  from  sin.  This  is  the  thread  that 
runs  through  it  all,  and  binds  all  its  parts  together ;  and 
the  right  clue  to  the  understanding  of  the  Bible  is  only 
given  when  it  is  read  in  this  light. 

It  is  here  that  so  much  of  our  modern  study  of  the 
Bible  goes  astray.  An  immense  amount  of  labour  is 
spent  on  non-essential  things,  while  the  essential  thing 
is  neglected.  Criticism  is  good  and  necessary ;  but, 
because  of  this  neglect  of  the  central  idea,  we  have 
speculation  after  speculation,  a  groping  about  as  of  blind 
men,  without  the  door  into  the  real  meaning  of  the  book 
ever  being  found.  Elaborate  statistical  tables  of  the 
critical  constituents  of  the  books — which  is  all  we  often 
get,  especially  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament — can 
never  take  the  place  of  the  study  of  the  Bible  as  the 
message  of  God’s  method  of  salvation.  Out  in  the 
country,  among  the  hills,  one  sometimes  comes  across  a 
solitary  fisher.  The  sun  is  shining,  the  birds  are  singing, 
the  mountains  are  towering  around  him,  but  he  sees  and 
hears  nothing  of  it  all.  His  soul  is  absorbed  in  that  little 
fish,  and  how  he  is  to  get  it  to  take  his  fly  or  worm.  All 
the  rest  has  passed  from  his  thoughts  for  the  time.  One 
is  irresistibly  reminded  of  this  enthusiast  when  one  sees 
the  critic  bending  with  his  microscope  over  the  smallest 
details  of  textual  analysis,  while  the  great  mountain 
heights  of  God’s  word — the  things  that  chiefly  concern 
— are  left  almost  wholly  out  of  view  ! 

I  have  said  that  the  Bible  doctrine  of  redemption  is 
intended  to  meet  our  need  in  all  its  parts.  This  has  the 
more  to  be  insisted  on,  that  our  human  experience  of 
that  need  is  always  imperfect  and  limited.  It  is  not  every 
rnan  that  realises  equally,  or  in  its  full  extent,  the  great- 

104 


Man  and  Sin 


ness  of  the  need  that  arises  from  sin.  People  are 
differently  constituted.  They  have  their  different 
experiences,  and  have  been  brought  to  feel  their  need  in 
different  ways.  One  thing  in  the  Gospel  appeals  to  one 
person,  another  to  another  person.  One  man,  e.g.,  is 
specially  laid  hold  of  by  the  idea  of  the  guilt  that  is  in 
sin;  of  his  exposure  through  sin  to  the  anger  and  judg¬ 
ment  of  a  holy  God.  His  cry,  like  that  of  the  Philippian 
jailor,  is:  “  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved?”  (Acts  xvi. 
30).  He  yearns  for  pardon,  for  forgiveness.  Another 
man,  just  as  true  as  he,  but  differently  constituted,  has, 
of  course,  some  realisation  of  the  guilt  of  sin — I  do  not 
suppose  that  anyone  really  convinced  of  sin  can  be  with¬ 
out  it — but  what  lays  hold  on  him  most  is  the  uncleanness 
of  sin.  It  fills  him  with  self-loathing  to  discover  the 
impurity  of  sin,  and  his  cry  is  supremely  for  sanctifica¬ 
tion,  for  holiness.  “  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God, 
and  renew  a  right  spirit  withim  me”  (Ps.  li.  10).  In 
comparison  with  this  the  other  side  of  guilt  and  danger 
is  almost  lost  sight  of.  That  beautiful  soul,  Henry  Drum¬ 
mond,  was,  I  think,  very  much  of  this  type.  Drummond’s 
soul  went  out  in  the  line  of  sanctification,  and  he  had  little 
to  say  about  some  other  doctrines,  e.g.,  the  atonement.  I 
think  his  theology  was  one-sided  and  defective  ;  but  it 
illustrates  how  it  may  be  given  to  one  man  to  see  with 
greater  clearness  one  aspect  of  the  truth  of  redemption, 
and  to  another  man  to  see  another  part.  Henry  Drum¬ 
mond  had  certainly  a  rare  insight  into  the  need  of  sanctifi¬ 
cation,  and  wrote  many  beautiful  things  on  it.  Other 
men,  again,  are  more  impressed  with  the  helplessness  and 
bondage  of  sin.  They  are  in  the  grasp  of  an  evil  habit,  and 
their  cry  is  for  power  to  overcome  it.  “  Who  shall  deliver 
me  out  of  the  body  of  this  death  ?  ”  (Rom.  vii.  24). 

All  these  are  Scriptural  aspects  of  sin,  and  of  the  need 
of  redemption  that  results  from  it.  But  it  is  the  glory  of 

I05 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

the  Bible  that  its  redemption  meets  the  whole  need  of 
man,  and  leaves  no  aspect  of  that  need  outside  of  it.  It 
comes  to  meet  the  need  of  man  not  simply  as  individuals 
happen  to  feel  it,  but  the  need  of  our  whole  humanity,  as 
God  sees  it,  and  probes  it  to  its  depths.  It  meets  the 
need  of  purging  from  guilt,  of  pardon,  of  sanctification,  of 
deliverance  from  inward  bondage,  of  spiritual  power.  It 
reveals  itself,  the  more  we  study  it,  as  an  “all-round” 
Gospel — a  key  that  fits  into  every  ward  of  the  complicated 
lock  of  our  spiritual  need  through  sin.  In  this  it  approves 
itself  to  be  divine. 


106 


VII 

Christ  and  Salvation : 
General  View 
The  Redeemer 


Christ  and  Salvation  : 

General  View — The  Redeemer 


THERE  is  an  expression  used  by  Paul  which  may  fitly 
introduce  this  new  branch  of  our  subject.  He 
speaks  of  “  the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus”  (Rom.  iii.  24).  It  has  been  seen  how  deplorable 
is  the  state  into  which  sin  has  brought  man — how  evil  it 
is,  as  a  state  of  depravity  and  bondage  ;  how  awful  it  is,  as 
a  state  of  guilt,  and  of  exposure  to  divine  wrath  ;  how 
universal  it  is,  as  not  simply  individual,  but  racial,  in  its 
effects ;  how  terrible  it  is,  in  its  eternal  consequences. 
Redemption — the  provision  which  God  has  made  for  the 
salvation  of  the  wTorld — has  to  meet  this  state  of  man  in 
all  its  parts.  It  is  the  fact  that  it  does  meet  it  which  is 
the  secret  of  the  perennial  power  of  the  Gospel.  “  He 
that  made  that  Book  made  me,”  was  a  remark  once  made 
upon  the  Bible.  Apart  from  all  external  attestation,  the 
Gospel  has  a  sure  witness  in  the  heart  of  every  man  to 
whom  it  is  preached.  “Commending  ourselves  to  every 
man’s  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God  ”  (2  Cor.  iv.  2). 

I. 

It  will  be  convenient,  in  unfolding  this  subject,  that  I 
begin  with  a  point  of  view  which  has  already  been  before 
us — I  refer  to  the  organic  constitution  of  the  race.  Sin,  as 
we  saw,  is  an  organic  thing.  In  the  connection  of  the 

iog 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

first  Adam  with  his  descendants,  there  is  a  representative 
principle  involved.  “In  Adam  all  die”  (i  Cor.  xv.  22). 
It  follows  that,  if  redemption  is  to  meet  this  aspect  of  the 
case,  it  must  deal  with  the  world  organically.  The  repre¬ 
sentative  principle  must  enter  here  also.  And  so,  if  we 
take  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  it  does.  “  As  in  Adam 
all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.”  The 
“alls”  here,  indeed,  are  limited  as  to  actual  result  by 
their  respective  spheres — all  “  in  ”  Adam  through  natural 
relation  ;  all  “in  ”  Christ  through  spiritual  relation.  But 
the  organic  principle  is  the  same  in  both. 

This  is  specially  the  view  of  the  matter  wrought  out  in 
the  remarkable  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ  in  Rom. 
v.  12-19.  Adam  in  his  representative  capacity  is  the 
figure  or  type  of  Christ  in  His.  There  is  not  a  separate 
redemption  for  each  individual.  Redemption  is  on  the 
principle  of  a  new  Head  of  the  race,  of  a  new  righteous¬ 
ness  won  for  man  by  Christ,  of  a  new  life  communicated 
through  union  with  Him  (vv.  15-19). 

This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  an  exceedingly  valuable  and 
helpful  point  of  view  in  dealing  with  the  difficulties  which 
many  feel  about  the  Christian  salvation.  It  has  been 
seen  how,  through  the  organic  constitution  of  the  race, 
there  is  of  necessity  a  suffering  of  many  for  the  sins  of 
others.  The  drunkard,  e.g.,  not  only  breaks  his  wife’s 
heart,  and  reduces  his  children  to  penury,  but  transmits 
to  his  offspring  a  diseased  organism.  With  profound 
truth,  the  Apostle  says:  “None  of  us  liveth  to  himself, 
and  none  dieth  to  himself”  (Rom.  xiv.  7).  You  say: 
“  This  is  very  hard,  that  one  should  be  made  to  suffer 
for  another’s  wrong-doings.”  It  is  hard,  though  it  flows 
from  a  constitution  which,  as  before  shown,  is,  in  its 
normal  working,  a  wholly  beneficent  one.  It  is,  in  any 
case,  the  law  under  which  we  are  obviously  placed. 

But  now,  is  it  not  just  here  that  we  begin  to  get  a 

no 


Christ  and  Salvation 


glimpse  of  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  salvation  ?  For, 
if  it  lies  in  the  organic  constitution  of  things  that  evil 
should  be  handed  down  from  one  generation  to  another — 
the  innocent  being  made  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  the 
guilty — is  it  not  the  necessary  counterbalance  of  this  idea, 
that  good  also  should  be  handed  down  from  one  to 
another — that  many  should  benefit  through  the  good  of 
one  ?  In  ordinary  life  we  see  this  principle  con¬ 
tinually  recognised.  It  is  not  the  evil  only  that  men  do 
that  entails  consequences.  The  good  they  do  affects 
those  connected  with  them  as  well.  A  son,  e.g.,  inherits 
title  and  estates  as  the  reward  of  his  sire’s  or  grandsire’s 
services  to  the  nation.  The  righteousness  of  the  good 
brings  blessing  to  the  sinful.  Is  it  not  reasonable  that  in 
the  Gospel  we  should  have  this  same  great  idea  of  the 
benefiting  of  the  many  through  the  righteousness  of  the 
One  ?  It  has  been  seen  how  Paul  teaches  that  through 
this  law  of  organic  connection  the  whole  race  is  involved 
in  sin  and  death  by  the  disobedience  of  one.  Is  it  not 
part  of  the  same  constitution  that  there  should  be  restora¬ 
tion  by  the  obedience  of  One  ?  We  discover,  in  short, 
that  there  is  a  wider  law  in  the  divine  government  than 
that  which  regards  mankind  solely  as  individuals — viz., 
the  organic — and  on  that  law  the  divine  procedure  with 
our  race  is  based,  both  in  judgment  and  in  mercy. 

II. 

Restoration  by  the  obedience  of  One  !  Yes  ;  but  where 
is  the  One  who  is  capable  of  taking  this  position  and 
effecting  this  work  ?  Capable  of  turning  back  this  terrible 
stream  of  evil  that  has  come  into  the  world  through  sin, 
and  of  bringing  in  redemption  and  salvation  ?  This  is 
the  question  that  presses  for  an  answer.  It  needs  no 
proof,  I  think,  that  this  is  not  a  work  which  anyone,  or 
everyone,  could  undertake,  or,  undertaking  it,  £Ould 

hi 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

accomplish  with  success.  Could  any  ordinary  son  of 
Adam — any  member,  i.e .,  of  the  race  that  was  to  be  saved 
— take  upon  him  such  a  task  ?  There  is  the  initial  bar 
that  such  an  one  is  himself  a  sinful  being,  involved  in  the 
disabilities  of  our  fallen  humanity;  one,  therefore,  who 5 
instead  of  becoming  the  Redeemer  of  the  world — the 
source  of  a  new  life  to  the  race — requires  himself  to  be 
redeemed.  But  apart  from  this,  could  such  an  ordinary 
member  of  the  race,  even  if  sinless — a  mere  individual 
among  others — take  up  this  absolutely  unique  position  of 
representing  the  whole  race  before  God,  and  of  transacting 
with  God  for  its  redemption  ?  The  question,  surely,  has 
only  to  be  asked  to  be  answered. 

No:  this  position  of  representative  of  man  and  world’s 
Redeemer  is  not  one  that  can  be  arbitrarily  assumed.  It 
must  rest  on  some  real  relation  which  subsists  between 
the  race  represented  and  the  person  who  represents  it. 
Adam,  e.g.,  sustained  a  natural  relation  to  his  posterity — 
one  which  made  his  standing  or  falling  a  true  represen¬ 
tative  act  in  regard  to  his  descendants.  The  Restorer  of 
the  race  must  be  One  whose  relation  is  equally  real,  or 
even  deeper  and  more  fundamental.  He  must  have  in 
Him  the  possibility  of  being  truly  a  new  Adam — a  new 
Head  and  Representative  of  mankind — not  in  any  fictional 
or  merely  “  federal,”  but  in  a  most  real  sense;  One  who 
stands  in  a  relation  to  God  and  to  humanity  which  no 
other  does ;  who  stands  in  such  a  relation  to  God  that 
He  can  represent  God  perfectly  to  men,  and  in  such  a 
relation  to  humanity  that  He  can  transact  for  man  with 
God ;  who  can  be  in  a  real  and  proper  sense  a  Mediator 
between  God  and  man. 

This  brings  us  to  the  question  of  who  the  Redeemer  in 
the  divine  economy  of  redemption  in  the  Gospel  actually 
is.  Who  is  this  Christ  whom  we  honour  with  the  name 
Saviour  ?  The  present  is  an  age  of  attempts  at  humani- 

112 


Christ  and  Salvation 


tarian  interpretations  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  Is  Jesus, 
then,  mere  man — albeit  the  noblest  and  holiest  of  men — 
one  individual  of  the  race — a  single  offshoot  of  humanity 
like  others  ?  Or  is  He  something  more  :  One  who  in  the 
root  of  His  Personality  is  divine — who  sustains  a  relation 
to  God,  to  the  world,  and  to  humanity,  which  antecedes 
all  time — who,  in  truth,  was  the  Creator  of  all  things — 
but  who,  for  us  and  our  salvation,  in  pursuance  of  the 
Father’s  counsel,  condescended  in  His  infinite  grace  and 
love  to  become  man,  and  to  stoop  to  suffering  and  death 
for  our  salvation  ?  This  latter  is  the  faith  of  the  Church 
about  Christ ;  it  is,  as  will  be  seen,  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  it  is  also,  I  venture  to  affirm,  the  only  doc¬ 
trine  which  gives  what  is  needed  as  an  adequate  support 
for  the  work  of  human  salvation. 

To  be  convinced  of  this,  think  only  again  of  what 
redemption  means.  To  remove  the  burden  of  the  world’s 
guilt ;  to  perfectly  reconcile  God  and  man  ;  to  be  the 
Mediator  of  forgiveness  to  the  race,  and  Source  to  it  of  a 
new,  eternal  life ;  to  be  all  that  Christ  has  proved  Him¬ 
self  to  be  to  humanity  of  strength,  of  hope,  of  comfort,  of 
joy,  of  holiness  ;  to  open  to  believers  the  gates  of  heavenly 
glory;  surely  it  must  be  felt  that  this  is  infinitely  too 
heavy  a  burden  to  be  laid  on  the  shoulders  of  any  mere 
man !  In  the  Scriptural  view  there  is  a  proportion  and 
consistency  between  the  work  to  be  done  and  the  Person 
who  is  to  do  it.  In  this  the  harmony  of  Scripture  doc¬ 
trine  is  again  evinced.  In  the  Being  of  God  we  saw  there 
is  a  Trinity  which  lays  the  foundation  for  the  possibility  of 
the  incarnation  of  the  Son.  In  the  relation  of  the  divine 
Son  to  the  world,  and  specially  to  humanity,  in  the 
creation,  is  grounded  the  possibility  of  a  unique  relation 
to  our  race — a  relation  “  sui  generis  ” — deeper  and  more 
fundamental  than  any  other.  Christ’s  relation  to  men  is 
unspeakably  closer  than  that  of  the  natural  Adam.  Adam 

113  1 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

was  th e  physical  progenitor  of  the  race  (i  Cor.  xv.  45,  47). 
The  Divine  Word  is  the  root  from  which  the  whole  race 
— even  Adam  himself — sprang.  When,  therefore,  the 
Word  entered  humanity — “  became  flesh  ”  (John  i.  14) — 
His  relation  to  the  race  was  representative  in  the  highest 
possible  degree.  If  the  saving  of  our  race  was  possible 
through  anyone  taking  upon  himself  the  burden  of  its 
responsibilities,  it  was  possible  through  Him.  Nor  can 
it  be  conceived  that  He  should  take  our  nature  upon  Him 
except  on  the  assumption  that  redemption  was  possible, 
and  with  the  design  of  accomplishing  it. 

In  the  light  of  the  work  of  human  redemption,  then, 
the  incarnation  of  the  Son  is  seen  to  be  an  essential  part 
of  Christian  doctrine.  Many  tendencies  are  at  present 
in  operation  to  weaken  this  doctrine — speculative  and 
evolutionary  theories,  doctrines  of  divine  immanence,  a 
pantheistic  identification  of  God  and  man,  above  all,  the 
powerful  bent  in  the  spirit  of  the  age  towards  a  non¬ 
supernatural  interpretation  of  the  facts  and  truths  of 
religion.  In  all  directions,  as  already  said,  the  attempt  is 
being  made  to  lower  the  doctrine  of  Christ  to  a  more  or  less 
avowed  humanitarian  level.  It  is  a  necessity  of  the  life 
of  the  Church  to  resist  these  tendencies,  and  to  contend 
for  a  Christ  who  is  as  essentially  divine  in  nature  and 
Personality  as  He  is  human  in  His  form  of  manifestation 
—who  is  the  very  Word  of  God  become  flesh  (John 
i.  14). 

Into  the  numerous  subtle  questions  which  have  agitated 
the  mind  of  the  Church  as  to  the  relations  of  the  divine  and 
human  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ — as  to  how  His  divine 
and  human  natures  are  united — I  cannot  enter  at  any 
length.  The  more  the  question  is  considered,  it  will  be 
found,  I  think,  that  the  Church  in  its  decisions  on  this 
profound  mystery  has  done  little  more  than  reaffirm  the 
essential  fact  to  which  faith  must  always  hold  fast — the 

IJ4 


Christ  and  Salvation 


fact,  viz.,  that  in  Jesus  Christ  we  have  at  once  true  man 
and  true  God — one  divine  and  human  Chr  st,  without 
dividing  of  His  person  (this  against  Nestorianism),  or 
mutilating,  or  confusing  of  the  natures  (this  against  what 
is  called  Apollinarianism  and  Eutychianism),  one 
Person,  truly  God,  in  being  begotten  by  the  Father 
before  all  worlds,  and  truly  man  in  the  possession  of  a 
true  human  body  and  a  true  soul.  To  these  essential 
positions  the  Church  universal  unswervingly  adhered, 
warding  off  denials  on  one  side  or  on  another  as  they 
arose,  and  seeking  language  which  would  unambiguously, 
however  imperfectly,  express  the  truth  affirmed.  It  is 
natural  to  plead  for  new  “  constructions,”  or  \o  claim  to 
be  free  from  all  constructions.  Commonly,  however,  the 
real  issue  in  these  contentions  will  be  discovered  to  be,  as 
of  old,  the  essential  Deity  of  Him  whom  we  call  Lord,  and 
the  choice  will  remain,  as  before,  betw  en  the  assertion  of 
Christ’s  oneness  in  essence  with  the  Father,  or  the 
descent,  through  various  intermediate  forms  of  negation, 
to  undisguised  humanitarianism. 

III. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  Incarnation,  in  the  sense 
defined,  is  the  undeniable  doctrine  of  Scripture,  just  as  we 
have  seen  it  to  be  the  necessary  presupposition  of  the 
redeeming  work  Christ  came  to  do.  Part  of  the  proof,  as 
respects  the  divine  side  of  Christ’s  person,  has  been 
already  given  under  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  There 
the  equality  in  nature  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  shown  to  be  involved  in  the  whole  New 
Testament  teaching  on  salvation.  It  is  not  denied  by 
impartial  exegetes  that  passages  abound  in  which  the 
highest  names,  attributes,  works,  and  honours  of  God 
are  ascribed  to  Christ.  He  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God,  and  was  God  (John  i.  i)  ;  was  in  the  “form  of 

US 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

God  ”  (Phil.  ii.  6)  ;  pre-existed  before  all  time — was 
eternal  (John  xvii.  5  ;  Col.  i.  17  ;  Rev.  i.  17)  ; 
created  and  upholds  all  things  (John  i.  2  ;  Col.  i.  16, 
17  ;  Heb.  i.  2,  3,  10,  &c.)  ;  is  named  God  (Acts  xx. 
28  ;  Rom.  ix.  5  ;  Heb.  i.  8)  ;  is  worshipped  as  God 
(Rev.  v.  12,  13)  ;  is  exalted  to  universal  dominion 
(Phil.  ii.  9-11  ;  Eph.  i.  20-23  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  22). 

If  it  is  argued,  as  it  sometimes  is,  that  this  is  a  late 
apostolic  development,  not  found  in  the  simpler  repre¬ 
sentation  of  Jesus  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels ,  the  reply  is,  that 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  came  from  the  hands  of  the  very 
men  who  held  and  taught  the  Apostolic  doctrine,  and 
that  they  saw  no  contrariety  in  the  representations.  The 
picture  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  not  less  than  that  in 
the  Epistles,  is  the  picture  of  a  Person  superhuman  in 
origin,  character,  claims,  endowments,  work,  and  destiny. 
Born  of  a  Virgin,  free  from  all  sin,  announced  as  the 
Messiah  who  should  baptise  with  the  Holy  Spirit  (Matt, 
iii.  11),  Founder  and  Lord  of  the  Kingdom  of  heaven, 
Saviour  from  sin  (Matt.  i.  21 ;  Luke  ii.  11  ;  xix.  10,  &c.), 
future  Judge  of  the  world  (Matt.  vii.  21-23  ;  xxv.  31  ff.), 
Fulfiller  of  Prophecy  and  Goal  of  Old  Testament  Reve¬ 
lation  (Matt.  v.  1 7  ;  Mark  ix.  12  ;  Luke  xxiv.  27,  44,  &c.), 
controlling  nature  by  His  word,  rising  from  the  dead, 
with  His  disciples  everywhere  to  the  end  of  the  world 
(Matt,  xviii.  20  ;  xxviii.  20) — it  will  be  difficult  to  maintain 
that  a  less  exalted  Person  than  the  Fourth  Gospel  and 
the  Epistles  depict  is  needed  to  sustain  such  dignity  and 
such  prerogatives !  It  is,  as  before  seen,  into  Christ’s 
name,  equally  with  that  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  we  are  baptised — rather  the  threefold  name  is 
one  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20). 

It  is  less  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  evidences  of  the  true 
humanity  of  Christ,  since  this,  in  these  days,  is  seldom 
disputed.  The  tendency  is  rather  to  resolve  everything 

116 


Christ  and  Salvation 


into  it.  Jesus  was  born  a  true  man  (Gal.  iv.  4) ;  He 
grew  from  childhood  to  manhood,  developing  in  wisdom 
as  in  stature  (Luke  ii.  40,  52)  ;  He  hungered,  He  thirsted, 
He  was  weary,  He  was  tempted ;  He  was  made  in  all 
things  like  unto  His  brethren  ;  “  yet  without  sin  ”  (Rom. 
viii.  3;  Heb.  ii.  14,  17;  iv.  15).  He  died  upon  the 
Cross,  and  was  buried  (1  Cor.  xv.  3,  4).  Every  view  of 
Jesus  which  detracts  from  the  entire  reality  of  His 
humanity — whether  by  pronouncing  it  a  semblance  (thus 
the  Gnostics),  or  by  saying  that  the  divine  Logos  took  the 
place  of  the  rational  soul  in  Jesus  (Apollinaris),  or  by 
denying  the  reality  of  Christ’s  human  development,  and 
His  voluntary  assumption  of  human  limitations — is  shown 
by  the  facts  of  the  Gospel  history  to  be  in  error. 

IV. 

How,  it  may  naturally  be  asked,  can  such  apparently 
contrary  aspects  in  Christ’s  Person  co-exist  ?  God  and 
man  ;  in  the  “  form  of  a  servant,”  yet  as  God  retaining 
His  undiminished  power  and  glory;  on  earth,  yet  “the 
Son  of  Man  who  is  in  heaven  ”  (John  iii.  13).  We  are 
not  called  upon  to  solve  these  problems  ;  nor  does  belief 
in  the  divine  fact  depend  upon  our  power  to  solve  them. 
Probably  if  we  could  sound  the  depths  of  our  own  per¬ 
sonality  we  should  find  that  mysteries  enough  are  con¬ 
tained  there  also — seemingly  contradictory  aspects,  depths 
that  connect  in  strange  ways  with  the  invisible  world, 
which  our  ordinary  consciousness  does  not  pierce.  We 
read  of  “  oversoul,”  of  “  subliminal  consciousness,”  of 
“  multiple  personality  ”  ;  a  pantheistic  philosophy  will 
even  have  it  that  each  finite  personality  is  a  “  reproduc¬ 
tion  ”  of  an  “  eternal  consciousness  ”  with  which  it  is  in 
nature  identical.  This  is  not  true  of  each  finite  person¬ 
ality,  else  every  man  would  be  God,  as  Christ  was.  But 
it  is  strange  that  such  statements  should  be  made,  yet 

11 7 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

difficulty  be  felt  at  the  co-existence  of  different  modes  of 
being  in  the  one  Personality  of  whom  it  is  true. 

One  thing  which  may  help  to  relieve  difficulties  on  this 
point  is  that  man  and  God  are  in  nature  akin.  Man  was 
made  in  God’s  image.  His  nature  is  receptive  of  the 
divine;  of  believers  it  is  even  said  that  they  “become 
partakers  of  the  divine  nature  ”  (2  Pet.  i.  4).  Humanity, 
as  a  whole,  it  was  before  seen,  has  its  ground  and  origin 
in  the  Logos  (John  i.  3-11).  There  lies,  therefore,  in  the 
very  constitution  of  man,  the  possibility  of  such  personal 
union  with  God  as  is  involved  in  the  Incarnation.  The 
Logos,  or  Son,  in  assuming  our  nature,  only  takes  to 
Himself  what  was  His  own,  and  makes  it  the  vehicle  of 
His  personal  manifestation. 

There  is  another  way  which,  in  modern  times,  has 
been  attempted  of  removing  the  difficulty  of  the  two  states 
of  Christ’s  being  while  on  earth,  viz.,  by  affirming  a  com¬ 
plete  surrender  of  all  divine  functions,  and  even  of  divine 
consciousness,  by  the  Son,  during  the  period  of  His 
earthly  humiliation.  This  is  the  so-called  “  Kenotic  ” 
theory  of  the  incarnation.  It  is  based  on  the  statement 
in  Phil  ii.  6,  7,  that  the  Son,  “  existing  in  the  form  of 
God,”  voluntarily  “  emptied  Himself,  taking  the  form  of 
a  servant.”  This  is  taken  to  mean  that,  during  His 
earthly  life,  the  Son  ceased  to  exist  in  the  form  of  God, 
even  as  respects  His  heavenly  existence.  The  place  of 
the  Son  in  the  life  of  the  Godhead  was  for  the  time 
suspended.  The  Son  gave  up  His  glory,  even  His  self- 
consciousness,  and  consented  to  be  born  as  an  unconscious 
babe  in  Bethlehem.  He  grew  into  the  consciousness  of 
His  Godhead,  as  He  grew  into  the  knowledge  of  His 
Messianic  dignity.  Only  after  His  resurrection  and 
exaltation  did  He  resume — now  in  our  humanity — the 
glory  He  before  had  with  the  Father.  The  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  this  conception  of  the  temporary  obliteration 

1 18 


Christ  and  Salvation 


of  consciousness  and  activity  on  the  part  of  one  of  the 
members  of  the  Holy  Trinity  appear  insuperable.  The 
Son’s  relation  to  the  universe — not  to  say  to  the  Godhead 
— is  not  of  the  contingent,  unessential  kind  that  could  be 
suspended  at  will.  “  In  Him  all  things  consist  ”  (Col. 
i.  17) — “  Upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  His  power” 
(Heb.  i.  3).  These  are  not  functions  that  could  be 
arbitrarily  abdicated.  Nor  is  this  meaning  required  by 
the  terms  in  Phil.  ii.  7.  The  “  emptying  ”  of  Christ  has 
relation,  not  to  His  divine  mode  of  existence,  but  to  His 
earthly  humiliation.  He,  the  Son  of  God,  took  upon 
Him  “  the  form  of  a  servant,”  and,  voluntarily  renouncing 
all  prerogatives  of  Godhead,  submitted  to  poverty,  suffer¬ 
ing,  rejection,  ignominious  death.  In  this,  surely,  there 
is  “  kenosis  ”  enough  to  satisfy  the  most  exacting. 

V. 

But  what,  it  will  still  be  asked,  of  the  state  of  humilia¬ 
tion  itself?  If,  in  becoming  man,  Christ  voluntarily 
forebore  the  use  of  His  divine  prerogatives  ;  submitting 
to  the  conditions  and  limitations  of  a  real  humanity — 
“growing  in  wisdom  and  stature” — how  does  this  bear 
upon  His  human  knowledge ,  and  especially  on  the  ascrip¬ 
tion  to  Him  by  many  in  modern  days  of  ignorance  and 
positive  error  ?  There  is  no  more  dangerous  type  of  error 
than  that  which  consists  in  the  abuse  of  a  truth  ;  and  the 
abuse  of  the  admitted  truth  of  Christ’s  submission,  in 
knowledge,  as  in  other  things,  to  the  limitations  of  a  real 
humanity,  is  a  signal  illustration  of  the  danger.  It  has 
opened  the  door  to  an  imputation,  ever  growing  freer  and 
more  reckless,  of  ignorance  and  mistake  in  our  Lord’s 
judgments,  which  goes  far  to  annul  His  authority  as  a 
Teacher  altogether.  It  is  allowed,  no  doubt,  by  some, 
that  on  the  central  parts  of  His  message — those  directly 
connected  with  His  Messianic  mission — His  teaching  may 

119 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

be  accepted ;  but  the  line  is  very  wavering  between 
essential  and  unessential,  and  there  are  many  qualifica¬ 
tions.  Much  has  still  to  be  allowed  for  the  influence  of 
contemporary  conceptions  of  Christ’s  views  of  God,  the 
world,  man,  the  Scriptures,  Messiahship,  the  future.  His 
eschatology  must  be  put  aside.  The  permanent  religious 
element  in  His  teachings  must  be  disengaged  from  the 
forms,  often  naive  and  unscientific,  in  which  His  mind 
clothed  it.  The  peril  arising  from  the  prevalence  of  this 
type  of  thinking  is  undoubtedly  very  great. 

Let  it  be  granted  that,  in  His  earthly  state,  Jesus 
submitted  to  such  limitations  as  a  true  manhood  imposed 
on  Him.  He  neither  claimed  nor  exercised,  as  man,  an 
absolute  omniscience  in  matters  of  natural,  or  even  of 
divine  knowledge.  No  one  imagines  that  Jesus  carried 
with  Him  through  life,  from  manger  to  Cross,  in  his 
human  consciousness  (nothing  is  said  here  of  His  divine), 
a  knowledge,  e.g.,  of  all  modern  sciences — astronomy, 
geology,  mathematics,  physics,  chemistry,  and  the  like. 
Such  things  were  foreign  to  His  calling  ;  He  had  no  need 
of  them,  else  they  would  have  been  given  Him.  On 
divine  things  such,  e.g.,  as  the  time  of  the  Advent,  He 
distinguishes  between  His  own  knowledge  and  that  of 
His  Father,  who  had  set  the  times  and  seasons  within 
His  own  authority  (Acts  i.  7),  and  says  expressly:  “Of 
that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels 
in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  ”  (Mark  xiii. 
32).  It  is,  however,  a  very  wide  and  unwarrantable 
inference  to  draw  from  this,  that  on  the  things  on  which 
Christ  did  pronounce,  His  mind  was  in  error.  The 
conclusion  to  be  deduced  is  rather  the  opposite.  If 
Jesus  had  not  the  knowledge  of  the  day  and  hour  of  the 
end,  He  said  so,  and  gave  no  utterance  on  the  subject. 
He  was  conscious  of  what  He  knew,  and  of  what  it  was  not 
given  Him  to  know.  Within  His  knowledge  He  spoke  ; 

120 


Christ  and  Salvation 


on  what  lay  beyond  He  was  silent.  In  what  He  did  say 
His  utterances  were  authoritative. 

A  first  mistake  in  this  theory,  therefore,  is  the  confusing 
of  ignorance  with  error.  If  there  was  limitation  of  know¬ 
ledge,  it  is  assumed  that  there  must  be  necessity  of  error. 
But  this  in  no  way  follows  in  regard  to  the  mind  of  the 
divine  Son.  That  mind  was  unlike  every  other  in  being 
pure  from  every  taint  and  flaw  of  sin  in  thought,  will,  or 
judgment.  It  was  a  pure  mirror  of  the  truth.  Jesus 
even  speaks  of  Himself  as  “the  Truth.”  It  was  unlike 
every  other,  further,  in  being  in  absolute,  constant  touch 
with  the  Source  of  all  truth.  There  was  an  intersphering 
of  knowledge  of  Son  and  Father  which  has  no  possible 
analogy  in  anyone  else.  Think  only  of  such  utterances 
as  these  :  “  No  one  knoweth  the  Son  save  the  Father; 
neither  doth  any  know  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  He 
to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  Him  ”  (Matt, 
xi.  27).  “  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself,  but  what 

He  seeth  the  Father  doing.  .  .  .  For  the  Father 

loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth  Him  all  things  that  Himself 
doeth  ”  (John  v.  19,  20). 

Is  not  this  enough  of  itself  to  guard  Christ  in  thought 
and  in  speech  from  error  ?  It  means  that  Christ’s  con¬ 
sciousness  moved  in  a  sphere  of  revelation  as  in  its  natural 
environment.  There  are  other  sayings  that  might  be 
recalled,  as  “  He  whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh  the  words 
of  God :  For  He  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  [unto 
Him].  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all 
things  into  His  hand  ”  (John  iii.  34,  35).  Does  this  leave 
room  at  any  point  for  error  in  Christ’s  consciousness  ? 
Finally,  it  is  never  to  be  forgotten  that,  while  the  Son 
submits  to  the  conditions  of  humanity,  it  is  still  the  Son  of 
God  who  so  submits,  and  behind  all  human  conditionings 
are  still  present  the  undiminished  resources  of  the 
Godhead.  Omniscience,  omnipotence,  all  other  divine 

121 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

attributes,  are  there,  though  not  drawn  upon,  save  as  the 
Father  willed  them  to  be.  Whatever  the  relation  of 
divine  and  human  in  Christ’s  Person,  they  dare  not  be 
held  so  far  apart  as  to  allow  of  His  falling  into  either 
sin  or  error. 

We  therefore  conclude  that,  in  all  that  relates  to  His 
Messianic  work,  Christ’s  humiliation  deprived  Him  of 
nothing  needed  to  constitute  Him  Perfect  Revealer  and 
Perfect  Mediator. 


122 


Christ  and  Salvation 
The  Atonement 


Christ  and  Salvation : 

The  Atonement 

'  T  has  been  seen  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ’s  Person 
stands  in  indissoluble  relation  with  the  work  He 
came  to  do  as  Redeemer.  The  Bible  does  not  mock 
us  by  giving  us  a  merely  human  Saviour — a  mortal  strug¬ 
gling  with  sin  and  weakness  like  ourselves.  It  gives  us 
One  who,  in  a  true  sense  one  with  us,  as  entering  into 
our  nature  and  temptations,  yet  is,  in  His  divine  Per¬ 
sonality,  the  “  strong,  eternal  Son  of  God  ” — “  mighty  to 
save”  (Is.  lxiii.  i).  We  have  seen  how  the  doctrines  of 
the  Bible  in  this  connection  fit  in  together.  We  began 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  divinity  of  Christ 
in  the  heart  of  it.  Now  we  see  where  the  divinity  of 
Christ  comes  in,  in  the  doctrine  of  our  salvation.  This  is 
where  Unitarianism  breaks  down  absolutely.  It  cannot 
yield  us  a  Saviour  adequate  to  our  need.  The  question 
we  now  come  to  ask  is  :  What  has  Christ  done  for  human 
salvation  ?  What  specially  has  He  done  in  making  atone¬ 
ment  for  sin  ? 


I. 

It  is  well  at  this  point  to  be  on  our  guard  against 
unduly  narrowing  the  idea  of  Christ’s  redemption,  as  if 
the  word  “  atonement  ”  summed  up  the  whole  of  it.  It 
does  not  even  sum  up  the  whole  of  the  priestly  work  of 

125 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

Christ,  for  that  is  continued  in  His  heavenly  intercession 
for  us  (Rom.  viii.  34;  Heb.  vii.  25;  1  John  ii.  1). 
Theology  has  been  accustomed  to  sum  up  the  redeeming 
work  of  Christ  under  the  heads  of  the  three  great  “offices” 
of  “Prophet,”  “Priest,”  and  “King,”  and  there  is  scrip¬ 
tural  warrant  for  this  distinction.  Christ  is  “  Prophet  ” 
as  the  Revealer  of  God  and  of  His  will  to  men  (Acts  iii. 
22) ;  He  is  “  King  ”  as  the  Founder  and  Lord  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  (John  xviii.  37).  The  prophetic  office 
was  mainly  exercised  on  earth — though  it  is  continued  in 
the  mission  of  the  Spirit  (John  xiv.  16,  17  ;  xv.  26  ; 
xvi.  13,  14),  and  the  preaching  of  Christ’s  ambassadors 
(2  Cor.  v.  20).  The  kingly  office  was  exercised  on  earth, 
but  is  now  specially  and  manifestly  exercised  in  heaven, 
where  Christ  has  been  exalted  to  the  throne  of  universal 
dominion  (Acts  ii.  34-36  ;  Eph.  i.  20-23  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  22). 
It  is  as  “the  King”  that  the  Son  of  Man  will  come  in 
His  glory  at  the  judgment  (Matt.  xxv.  31,  34,  40). 

Still,  it  is  in  the  work  of  atonement  for  sins  which  Christ 
accomplished  by  His  death  that  Scripture  always,  concen¬ 
trates  the  efficacy  of  Plis  appearance  for  our  salvation.  It 
was  there  that  “  propitiation  ”  was  made  for  sin  (Rom. 
iii.  25;  Heb.  ii.  17;  1  John  ii.  2;  iv.  10) ;  that  “  recon¬ 
ciliation  ”  was  effected,  and  “  peace  ”  made  between  man 
and  God  (2  Cor.  v.  18-21 ;  Rom.  v.  9,  11 ;  Eph.  ii.  13-17; 
Col.  i.  20,  21);  that  the  one  “sacrifice”  was  offered  by 
which  sin  has  been  for  ever  put  away  (Heb.  ix.  26-28). 
The  atonement  is  the  basis  on  which  the  whole  super¬ 
structure  of  redemption  rests.  To  deny  it  is,  in  effect,  to 
take  the  foundation  from  the  Gospel. 

Yet,  strangely  enough,  it  is  this  very  doctrine,  the  glory 
of  the  Christian  Gospel,  which  has  been,  in  recent  times, 
the  object  of  special  disfavour  and  assault.  No  one 
familiar  with  the  currents  of  modern  thought  will  deny 
that  for  many  years  there  has  been  a  very  considerable 

126 


Christ  and  Salvation 


alienation  of  mind  on  the  part  of  multitudes  from  the  idea 
of  expiatory  atonement  in  connection  with  Christ’s  death. 
The  doctrine  is  not  preached  as  it  used  to  be  in  our 
pulpits — certainly  is  not  made  the  centre  of  preaching ; 
or,  if  it  is  preached,  it  is  generally  with  some  new  inter¬ 
pretation  which  one  feels  instinctively  is  not  the  meaning 
of  the  Apostles.  I  do  not  wait  to  analyse  the  causes  of 
this  dislike.  It  may  be  that  the  churches  are  themselves 
partly  to  blame,  in  giving  the  doctrine  too  formal  and 
scholastic  a  cast ;  it  may  be  that  newer  theories,  in  some 
cases,  are  attempts  to  find  a  place  for  aspects  of  truth 
that  had  been  unduly  neglected ;  it  may  be  that  the  doc¬ 
trine  really  stood  in  need  of  interpretation  on  lines  more 
spiritual  than  had  been  customary. 

In  my  own  judgment  the  principal  cause  of  aversion  to 
the  doctrine  lies  in  a  different  direction — in  the  prevalence 
of  philosophical  and  scientific  theories  which  take  the 
foundation  from  those  Biblical  doctrines  which  are  the 
presuppositions  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  so  compel¬ 
ling  either  its  rejection,  or  a  new  and  unscriptural  inter¬ 
pretation  of  its  meaning.  That  doctrine,  however,  can 
never  really  be  extruded  from  the  Gospel.  Despite  all 
that  men  can  do  or  say,  it  is  certain  to  come  back — there 
are  already  many  indications  that  it  is  coming  back — and 
will  as  surely  resume  its  place  in  the  centre  of  the  Gospel 
as  the  sun  will  rise  in  the  heavens  to-morrow  ! 

II. 

I  have  alluded  to  the  drift  of  the  mind  of  the  age  away 
from  the  presuppositions  of  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  atone¬ 
ment.  This  is  a  point  on  which  there  should  be  a  clear 
understanding  at  the  outset.  There  is  no  use  studying 
the  doctrine  of  atonement  in  the  Bible  unless  we  are  pre¬ 
pared  to  do  it  in  the  light  of  the  Bible’s  own  presuppo¬ 
sitions,  especially  in  the  light  of  its  teaching  on  the 

12  7 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

character  and  holiness  of  God,  and  on  the  sin  of  man.  That 
God  is  holy — that  He  can  never  look  on  sin  but  with 
abhorrence  and  displeasure — can  never  call  sin  aught  else 
but  what  it  is,  or  tamper  with  the  condemning  testimony 
of  His  law  against  it ;  this  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the 
other,  that  sin  is  sin,  a  thing  inherently  evil,  condemn- 
able,  punishable,  the  result  of  voluntary  transgression 
laying  the  world  and  the  individual  transgressor  under 
God’s  just  condemnation,  these  are  postulates  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  atonement  without  the  admission  of  which  the 
doctrine  becomes  meaningless.  If  these  presuppositions 
of  the  doctrine  are  denied,  or  are  displaced  by  some 
modern  view  which  proceeds  on  opposite  ideas,  I 
despair  of  ever  making  the  atonement  appear  real  or 
reasonable. 

Take,  as  examples,  the  two  presuppositions  that  have 
been  mentioned  : — God’s  holiness  and  man’s  sin.  Suppose 
that  under  the  influence  of  some  form  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  character  of  God  as  holy 
Judge  of  the  world  and  Punisher  of  sin  is  called  in  ques¬ 
tion  ;  or  that,  under  the  influence  of  some  evolutionary 
theory  of  man’s  origin,  the  gravity  of  sin  is  minimised, 
its  guilt  extenuated,  the  condemnation  of  God  resting  on 
the  sinner  weakened;  or  that,  on  yet  higher  metaphysical 
grounds,  sin  is  taken  up  into  the  world-process,  and 
represented  as  a  necessity  of  human  development — an 
element  in  the  life  of  God  Himself— then,  plainly,  there 
is  no  basis  left  for  a  doctrine  of  atonement,  and  we  need 
not  wonder  that  men  fight  shy  of  it,  or  scoff  at  it. 

It  is  on  the  basis  of  the  Biblical  conception — not  on 
those  of  non-Biblical  philosophical  or  scientific  theories 
— that  the  study  of  the  atonement  is  here  approached. 
So  approaching  it,  what  must  first  strike  the  impartial 
student  is,  how  largely  and  vitally  this  doctrine  enters 
into  the  representations  of  both  Old  Testament  and  New. 

128 


Man  and  Sin 


Many,  it  is  to  be  feared,  who  discuss  the  subject,  have 
never  taken  the  trouble  to  make  a  careful  study  of  the 
Bible  teaching  in  regard  to  it.  They  deal  with  it  on 
general  principles  that  commend  themselves  to  their  own 
minds,  and  pay  little  heed  to  what  the  Bible  itself  has  to 
say  on  the  matter.  This  is  a  mistake,  for  the  Bible 
throughout  has  a  definite  and  coherent  doctrine  on  atone¬ 
ment  for  sin,  and  those  who  give  attention  to  it  will 
probably  be  surprised  to  find  how  uniform  and  un¬ 
ambiguous  are  its  teachings. 

III. 

The  doctrine  of  propitiatory  atonement  is  deeply  in- 
wrought  into  the  structure  of  the  Old  Testament. 

i.  It  is  found  first  and  most  prominently  in  the  doctrine 
of  sacrifice,  which  meets  us  from  the  beginning,  and  has, 
even  in  its  simplest  form,  that  of  the  burnt  offering,  an 
expiatory  significance  (cf.  Job  i.  5  ;  xlii.  8-9).  The  blood, 
in  which  was  the  life,  was  a  sacred  thing,  and,  when 
presented  to  God,  had  a  sin-covering  efficacy  (cf.  Lev. 
xvii.  2).  The  covenants  were  ratified  by  sacrifice  (Gen. 
viii.  20-23  ;  ix. ;  xv.  ;  Exod.  xxiv.  5-8  ;  cf.  Heb.  ix.  18-22). 
The  blood  of  the  passover  lamb,  sprinkled  on  the  door¬ 
posts  and  lintels,  protected  the  Israelites  from  the 
destroyer  (Exod.  xii.  7,  13,  22,  23).  It  is  in  the  Levitical 
ritual ,  however,  which  there  is  no  good  reason  for  carrying 
down  to  post-exilian  times,  that  the  idea  of  propitiatory 
sacrifice  attains  to  completed  expression.  Of  divine 
appointment,  the  Levitical  system  is  constructed  for  a 
definite  end,  that  of  mediating  the  approach  of  a  people 
in  whom  there  is  sin  to  a  holy  God,  and  has,  as  a  leading 
part  of  its  design,  the  making  atonement ,  or  propitiation 
for  sin.  This  is  constantly  declared  of  the  sacrifices, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  peace-offerings,  where,  in  the 
imposition  of  hands  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  (Lev. 

129  K 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

iii.  8),  it  is  implied  (Lev.  i.  4  ;  iv.  20,  26 ;  v.  18,  &c.).  The 
word  rendered  “  to  atone  ”  means  literally  “  to  cover,” 
the  idea  being  that  the  blood  presented  on  the  altar 
covered  the  person  of  the  sinner,  or  covered  his  sin,  from 
the  eyes  of  the  holy  God  (Lev.  xvii.  11).  On  the  great 
Day  of  Atonement,  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering,  shed 
for  the  sins  of  the  people,  was  sprinkled  upon  the  mercy- 
seat  (Lev.  xvi.  15,  16) — intercepting,  as  it  were,  the 
condemning  testimony  that  rose  up  from  the  tables  of 
the  law  beneath  to  God.  The  writer  to  the  Hebrews 
illustrates  with  profound  insight  the  significance  of  the 
law  and  the  priesthood  as  at  once  a  foreshadowing  of 
good  things  to  come,  and  a  temporary  institute  which 
had  not  the  power  of  itself  to  effect  that  which  it  fore¬ 
shadowed  (Chs.  ix.,  x). 

2.  A  different,  but  equally  instructive,  line  of  develop¬ 
ment  is  seen  in  the  psalms  and  prophets  in  the  delineation 
of  the  righteous  sufferer ,  which  culminates  in  the  definite 
taking  over  of  the  sacrificial  idea  of  the  law  upon  the 
“  Servant  of  the  Lord  ”  in  Is.  liii.  In  this  wonderful 
chapter — the  most  explicit  prediction  of  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ  in  the  Old  Testament — you  have  a 
Righteous  Sufferer  too,  one  “despised  and  rejected  of 
men”  (ver.  3).  But  the  distinctive  thing  is,  that  His 
sufferings  are  now  atoning,  expiatory,  a  means  of  removal 
of  the  guilt  of  sin.  “  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgres¬ 
sions,  He  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities;  the  chastise¬ 
ment  of  our  peace  was  upon  Him ;  and  with  His  stripes 
we  are  healed  ”  (ver.  5).  His  soul  is  made  “  an  offering 
for  sin,”  or  as  the  word  literally  is,  “a  guilt-offering  ” 
(ver.  10).  The  Lord  “  laid  on  Him  the  iniquity  of  us 
all  ”  (ver.  6)  ;  He  bears  iniquities  (ver.  11)  ;  “  He  poured 
out  His  soul  unto  death,  and  was  numbered  with  the 
transgressors  ;  yet  He  bear  the  sin  of  many,  and  made 
intercession  for  the  transgressors”  (ver.  12).  His  death 

I3° 


Man  and  Sin 


is  followed  by  a  signal  triumph.  By  the  knowledge  of 
Him  many  are  justified  (ver.  n).  He  sees  His  seed, 
prolongs  His  days,  rules  and  conquers  (vers,  io,  12).  It  is 
not  surprising  that  this  remarkable  prophecy  was  often 
in  the  mind  of  Christ  Himself,  and  is  frequently  alluded 
to  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  iv.  17-21;  xxii.  37; 
Acts  viii.  27-35  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  24,  &c.). 

IV. 

Next,  as  to  the  New  Testament . 

1.  That  an  atoning  efficacy  is  ascribed  to  the  suf¬ 
ferings  and  death  of  Christ  in  the  Epistles  few  will 
dispute.  The  idea  is  not  only  there  ;  it  saturates  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  present  in  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  of  John,  of  Peter,  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  in  the  Book  of  Revelation.  In 
every  variety  of  language  it  is  declared  that  Christ  died 
for  us,  bore  our  sins,  was  made  sin  for  us,  redeemed  us  by 
His  blood,  made  reconciliation  by  His  death,  was  a  pro¬ 
pitiation  for  our  sins,  obtained  for  us  forgiveness  of  sins, 
&c.  ( cf .  Rom.  iii.  25;  v.  8-11  ;  2  Cor.  v.  21;  Gal.  i.  4; 

iii.  13  ;  iv.  4 ;  Eph.  i,  7  ;  Col.  i.  20-22  ;  Heb.  ix.  26-28  ; 
1  Pet.  i.  18,  19 ;  ii.  24 ;  iii.  18 ;  1  John  i.  7  ;  ii.  2  ;  iii.  5  ; 

iv.  10  ;  Rev.  i.  5  ;  v.  9,  &c.).  Paul  names  this  as  the  first 
article  of  the  Gospel  he  had  “received,”  “that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures  ”  (1  Cor.  xv. 
3).  In  this,  however,  it  is  often  said,  as  before,  that  we 
have  a  contrast  between  the  Epistles  and  the  Gospels, 
and  that  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself,  especially  in 
the  first  three  Gospels,  this  doctrine  of  atonement  is 
wanting.  Penitence  and  faith,  it  is  declared,  are  there 
the  only  conditions  of  salvation.  The  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  is  pointed  to,  in  which  there  is  no  sugges¬ 
tion  of  a  need  of  atonement  in  order  to  forgiveness. 

EH 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

2.  In  this  not  infrequent  opposing  of  Gospel  to  Epistle 
there  is  again  a  strange  oversight.  In  one  sense,  indeed, 
there  must  be  a  contrast.  Gospel  is  not  yet  Epistle.  It 
was  not  to  be  expected  that,  at  a  time  when  even  His 
Messiahship  had  not  been  publicly  proclaimed,  Jesus 
should  be  found  speaking  of  the  connection  of  salvation 
with  His  sufferings  and  death — speaking  of  His  Cross, 
when  the  Cross  had  not  yet  been  reared.  Fact  must 
precede  doctrine.  The  atonement  had  to  be  made  before 
it  could  be  fully  preached.  Yet  Jesus  did  not  altogether 
keep  silence  on  His  approaching  death  and  its  significance, 
nor  do  the  Evangelists  represent  Him  as  so  doing.  Such 
teaching  is  not  to  be  looked  for  in  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son,  which  has  its  own  lesson  to  convey,  and 
leaves  other  aspects  of  salvation  untouched.  If  atone¬ 
ment  is  not  mentioned,  it  may  perhaps  occur  that  the 
same  objection  would  apply  to  all  mediation  of  salvation 
or  forgiveness  by  Christ,  for  Christ  does  not  appear  in  the 
parable  either.  Yet  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that,  in 
all  the  Gospels,  Jesus  appears  as  the  Founder  of  the 
Messianic  Kingdom,  and  bringer  in  of  the  Messianic  sal¬ 
vation,  the  blessings  of  which  depend  on  His  Person  and 
work. 

Not  only,  however,  in  this  general  sense  does  Jesus 
connect  salvation  with  His  Person  ;  in  many  utterances 
He  gives  unmistakable  indications  of  His  consciousness 
that  the  redemption  of  the  world  is  to  be  accomplished 
through  His  death.  Such,  in  John’s  Gospel,  is  the  utter¬ 
ance  to  Nicodemus,  “  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in 
the  wilderness,”  &c.  (John  iii.  14-16)  ;  the  statement  at 
Capernaum  about  giving  His  flesh  for  the  life  of  the 
world  (vi.  51-96)  ;  His  words  on  the  Good  Shepherd 
giving  His  life  for  the  sheep  (x.  10-18)  ;  the  remarkable 
saying,  “  I  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth  will  draw  all 
men  unto  myself”  (xii.  32).  Then,  in  the  Synoptics,  is 

132 


Man  and  Sin 


the  pregnant  declaration  :  “  The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to 
be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  His  life  a 
ransom  for  many  ”  (Matt.  xx.  28  ;  Mark  x.  45)  ;  above  all, 
the  words  at  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  as  to 
His  body  broken  and  His  blood  shed  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  the  founding  of  a  new  covenant  between  man 
and  God  (Matt.  xxvi.  26-28  ;  Mark  xiv.  22-24;  Luke  xxii. 
17-20;  1  Cor.  xi.  23-26).  Christ’s  death  was  much  in 
His  thoughts  in  the  latter  part  of  His  ministry,  and  He 
expressly  connected  it  with  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  the 
appointment  of  God,  and  the  accomplishment  of  His 
mission  (Matt.  xx.  17-19  ;  Luke  ix.  22,  31  ;  xviii.  31-33, 
&c.) 

Is  not,  in  truth,  the  whole  appearance  of  the  Son  of  God 
in  our  humanity  in  this  humbled,  suffering  condition  a 
mystery  without  the  light  which  this  doctrine  of  redemp¬ 
tion  sheds  upon  it  ?  The  Gospels  give  the  key  for  its 
understanding  when  they  say :  “  Thou  shalt  call  His 

name  Jesus ;  for  it  is  He  that  shall  save  His  people  from 
their  sins  ”  (Matt.  i.  21) ;  “  There  is  born  to  you  this  day 
in  the  City  of  David  a  Saviour,  who  is  Christ  the  Lord  ” 
(Luke  ii.  11);  “Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world  ”  (John  i.  21).  Jesus  Himself 
shows  His  consciousness  of  the  significance  of  His  death 
as  a  turning  point  in  the  relations  of  God  and  man,  in  His 
post-resurrection  injunctions  to  go  and  preach  remission 
of  sins  in  His  name  to  all  nations  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20  ; 
Mark  xvi.  15,  16 ;  Luke  xxiv.  44-49).  The  Apostolic 
teaching  is  but  the  consistent  interpretation,  in  the  fuller 
illumination  of  the  Spirit,  of  the  facts  and  statements 
which  the  Gospels  already  contain. 

V. 

Distinction  is  often  made  between  fact  and  theory  in 
the  doctrine  of  atonement ;  but  it  will  be  evident  from 

133 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

what  has  been  said  that  an  element  of  what  is  called 
“  theory,”  i.e.,  of  doctrinal  significance,  attaches  to  even 
the  simplest  statements  of  Scripture  on  this  subject. 
“Fact  ”  and  “theory”  are  at  all  times  relative  terms. 
The  Copernican  “  theory  ”  of  the  heavens  is  now  accepted 
as  an  established  “  fact  ”  of  nature.  “  Gravitation  ”  was 
once  “  theory  ”  ;  it  is  now  universally  treated  as  “  fact.” 
The  bare  “  fact  ”  in  Christ’s  death  is  that  a  man,  called 
Jesus,  was  once  crucified.  So  soon  as  an  interpretation 
of  that  death  which  sets  it  in  relation  to  human  sin  is 
given — so  soon  as  doctrinal  significance  is  attached  to  it 
— we  enter  the  region  of  what  is  misnamed  “  theory.”  If, 
however,  the  explanation  is  of  the  essence  of  the  “fact” 
— if  it  is  in  its  relation  to  sin  that  the  death  of  Christ  has 
its  chief  meaning  and  importance  for  the  Gospel — the 
distinction  between  “fact”  and  “theory,”  so  far  as  the 
relation  is  revealed,  disappears.  The  New  Testament 
will  not  allow  us  to  believe  that  everything  remains  vague 
and  undetermined  in  the  meaning  we  are  to  attach  to 
Christ’s  doing  and  dying  for  our  salvation.  It  is  not 
every  conception  of  the  Cross  that  suits  the  full  and  varied 
representations  given  of  it  in  Scripture.  Many  questions, 
doubtless,  remain,  into  the  answers  to  which  an  element 
of  human  “  theory  ”  enters ;  and  no  view  of  the  atone¬ 
ment  can  claim  to  be  adequate  to  the  divine  reality.  Our 
thoughts  here,  also,  are  ever  enlarging.  But  the  great 
basal  lines  of  the  doctrine  are  laid  down  from  the  first 
with  unmistakable  clearness. 

In  seeking  a  connected  view  which  shall  do  justice  to 
the  manysidedness  of  the  truth  of  the  atonement,  and  help 
to  correct  the  misapprehensions  and  remove  the  diffi¬ 
culties  sometimes  felt  in  regard  to  it,  it  is  very  important 
to  see  clearly  where  kthe  difficulty  about  the  atonement 
principally  lies.  The  real  difficulty  does  not  lie  where  it 
is  often  put,  viz.,  in  the  mere  fact  of  the  innocent  suffering 

134 


Man  and  Sin 


for  the  guilty.  It  does  not  lie  there,  for  this  is  not  a  thing 
confined  to  Jesus  Christ,  though  He  is  the  most  glorious 
example  of  it.  The  world  is  full  of  the  suffering  of  the 
innocent  for  the  sins  of  others.  More  than  this,  the  world 
is  full  of  substitutionary,  of  vicarious,  forces — of  the 
voluntary  enduring  of  suffering  for  the  sake  of  others. 
This  is  the  point  in  Bushnell’s  book  on  Vicarious  Sacrifice , 
and  it  is  true  and  good  so  far  as  it  goes.  Bushnell  lays 
stress  on  the  substitutionary  forces  at  work  in  human  life, 
and  shows  how,  in  His  perfect  sympathy  with  men,  these 
were  at  work  at  their  maximum  in  the  case  of  Christ. 

It  is  not  there  that  the  difficulty  lies,  but  here  :  how 
this  suffering  of  Jesus,  the  innocent  for  the  guilty,  should 
become  expiatory.  Here  other  elements  enter  which  a 
mere  theory  of  sympathy  does  not  explain.  The  Old 
Testament,  as  we  have  seen,  has  much  to  say  of  the 
sufferings  of  the  righteous  for  the  sins  of  others  ( cf .  Ps. 
xxii.) ;  but  it  is  not  till  we  come  to  Is.  liii.  that  we  have 
the  representation  of  One  whose  sufferings  are  atoning. 
Suffering  for  another’s  sins  has  in  and  of  itself  no 
expiatory  character.  It  is  an  aggravation  of  the  sin  ;  not 
an  atonement  for  it.  A  prodigal  breaks  his  mother’s 
heart ;  but  the  grief  he  causes  her  does  not  wipe  out  his 
sin.  It  adds  to  its  enormity.  A  martyr  perishes  at  the 
stake,  but  this  does  not  atone  for  the  crime  of  his 
murderers.  Jesus  declares  that  on  Jerusalem  would  come 
all  the  blood  of  prophets  and  righteous  men  (Matt,  xxiii. 
34-36).  Christ’s  own  crucifixion  was  an  unspeakable 
crime  for  which  repentance  was  demanded  (Acts.  ii.  23  ; 
iii.  14-19). 


VI. 

What,  then,  was  it  in  Christ’s  death,  in  distinction  from 
that  of  a  martyr  sufferer,  which  constituted  it  an  atone¬ 
ment  for  the  sins  of  the  world  ? 

135 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

1.  Subjective  theories  here  fail,  which  seek  the 
explanation  of  Christ’s  reconciling  work  solely  in  the 
moral  effect  of  the  spectacle  of  suffering  love  in  breaking 
down  the  enmity  of  the  sinner,  and  bringing  him  to 
repentance.  The  Gospel  is  such  a  “  moral  dynamic  ”  ;  but 
the  efficacy  lies  not  in  the  bare  exhibition  of  suffering 
goodness,  but  in  the  conviction  that  Christ  suffered  thus 
for  our  redemption — that  through  His  death  we  have 
pardon  and  peace  with  God.  The  fault  of  all  such 
theories  is  that  they  leave  out  of  account  the  God-ward 
aspect  of  Christ’s  work — that  aspect  which  Scripture 
peculiarly  emphasises  in  speaking  of  His  death  as  a 
“propitiation.”  Bushnell  did  good  service  in  laying 
stress  on  the  deep  and  vital  sympathy  of  Christ  as  a 
qualification  for  His  work  as  Redeemer  (Heb.  ii.  14-18  ; 
iv.  14-16).  But  Bushnell  himself  came  to  see  later  that 
he  had  done  less  than  justice  to  the  idea  of  “  propitiation,” 
and  sought  to  find  a  place,  though  still  an  inadequate  one, 
for  it  in  his  theory. 

2.  Shall  we,  then,  with  others,  seek  to  find  the  essence 

of  Christ’s  sacrifice  in  the  yielding  up  of  His  holy  will  to 
the  Father?  Sin,  we  are  reminded,  has  its  essence  in 
self-will — in  the  setting  up  of  the  human  will  against 
God  — and  Christ  has  retracted  this  root-sin  of  humanity 
by  offering  up  to  God,  under  experience  of  suffering  and 
death,  the  well-pleasing  sacrifice  of  a  will  wholly  obedient 
and  self-surrendered.  “  Lo,  I  am  come  to  do  Thy  will  ” 
(Heb.  x.  9).  “  Not  as  I  will,  but  as  Thou  wilt”  (Matt, 

xxvi.  39).  There  is  again  deep  truth  in  this.  It  was 
assuredly  not  the  mere  physical  suffering  in  Christ’s  death 
that  pleased  God — so  much  torment.  Christ’s  sacrifice 
was  an  act  of  “obedience”  (Rom.  v.  19;  Phil.  ii.  8). 
Christ’s  obedience  as  a  whole — not  in  His  death  only — 
constitutes  our  standing  ground  before  God.  In  saying 
this,  however,  we  do  not  state  the  whole  truth,  and  the 

136 


Man  and  Sin 


most  characteristic  declarations  of  Scripture  remain  un¬ 
explained,  if  we  do  not  go  further  and  see  in  Christ’s  death 
for  our  sins  a  relation,  not  only  to  the  preceptive  or  command¬ 
ing,  but  also  to  the  condemning  and  punishing  will  of  God — 
to  the  aspect  of  sin  as  guilt,  and  to  God’s  judgment  upon  it. 

3.  Is  this,  moreover,  not  an  essential  aspect  of  any 
adequate  doctrine  of  atonement  ?  If  Christ,  as  the  up¬ 
holders  of  these  previous  views  admit,  completely  identi¬ 
fied  Himself  with  us,  must  He  not  have  taken  part  and 
lot  with  us  in  our  whole  position  as  under  sin — not  simply 
as  under  law,  but  as  under  a  broken  and  violated  law  and 
exposed  to  God’s  just  condemnation  on  that  account  ?  It 
was  part  of  His  identification  with  us  that  He  took  His 
place  with  us,  as  Paul  phrases  it,  “  under  the  law  ” — the 
law  that  had  entailed  a  curse  upon  us  (Gal.  iii.  13  ;  iv.  4). 
Jesus  could  not  be  under  that  law,  and  refuse  to  take 
account  of  its  righteous  condemnation  of  sin,  or  be  with¬ 
out  desire  to  do  honour  to  it.  How,  indeed,  if  the  law 
was  not  “  magnified  ”  in  this  respect  as  in  others,  could 
atonement  be  made  ?  The  very  fact  in  our  situation 
which  necessitates  atonement  is  that  we  stand  in  this 
condemnation  before  God.  How  then  can  that  fact,  in 
any  act  of  atonement,  be  disregarded  ?  We  have  seen 
that,  in  the  full  Scriptural  view,  it  is  not  disregarded.  All 
that  is  written  of  Christ  bearing  our  sins,  being  made  sin 
for  us,  redeeming  us  from  the  curse,  reconciling  us  to 
God,  taken  in  connection  with  what  is  taught  of  our  con¬ 
demned  position  before  God,  and  the  effects  of  Christ’s 
death  in  delivering  us  from  that  condemnation,  imply  this 
truth.  Jesus,  in  His  death,  is  regarded  as  doing  honour 
to  the  condemning  as  well  as  to  the  prescriptive  will  of  God. 

VII. 

If,  going  further,  we  press  the  question  of  how  Christ 
in  this  way  bore  our  sins — what  made  His  endurance  of 

137 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

suffering  and  death  an  atonement  for  sin,  we  have  to 
confess  ourselves  in  presence  of  a  mystery  on  which  only 
partial  light  is  available.  Yet  in  the  larger  context  of 
Scripture  certain  considerations  present  themselves  which 
serve  as  aids  to  comprehension.  As  bearing  on  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  atonement,  there  is  the  dignity  of  Christ’s  person 
as  Son  of  God,  and  His  actual  sinlessness — “  a  lamb  with¬ 
out  blemish  and  without  spot”  (i  Pet.  i.  19).  Deeper 
still,  there  is  Christ’s  unique  relation  to  our  race,  formerly 
emphasised,  which  creates  the  possibility  of  a  represen¬ 
tative  relation  such  as  no  other  could  sustain.  There  is 
again  the  organic  constitution  of  our  race,  which  permits 
of  His  entrance  into  it  as  its  new  Head,  to  redeem  it  by 
His  obedience  and  death  from  the  ruin  entailed  upon  it 
by  the  disobedience  of  the  first  Adam. 

These  are  conditions  of  the  possibility  of  atonement ;  for 
the  essence  of  the  atonement  itself  we  must  doubtless 
think  of  the  complete  honour  which  Christ,  in  our  name 
and  nature,  standing  in  the  relation  to  God  and  to 
humanity  that  He  did,  was  able  to  render  to  the  divine 
righteousness  in  His  endurance  of  death  for  us.  Here, 
first,  is  the  historical  fact  that  Jesus,  in  His  complete 
identification  with  us,  did  voluntarily  enter  into  the 
penal  conditions  of  our  state  as  sinners,  and,  at  the 
last,  into  death,  the  culminating  form  of  these  evils, 
and  expression  of  God’s  judgment  on  sin.  But  this 
was  no  mere  outward  experience  for  Jesus — no  simple 
fate  overtaking  Him.  Christ,  in  these  sufferings, 
entered,  we  must  believe,  as  no  other  could  have  done, 
into  the  whole  meaning  of  the  sin  of  the  world  before 
God,  and  into  the  whole  mind  of  God  in  relation  to  that 
sin.  His  sympathy  was  perfect  with  both  God  and  man. 
As  representing  man,  He  took  the  whole  burden  of  the 
sin  of  the  world  upon  His  heart — palliating  nothing, 
acknowledging  all,  justifying  God  in  His  condemnation  of 

138 


Man  and  Sin 


it,  passing  Himself  under  the  doom  of  it  (2  Cor.  v.  21). 
Thus  He  became  one  with  the  sinner  to  the  uttermost 
point  to  which  love  could  carry  Him.  In  God’s  adorable 
wisdom  and  grace  He  was  permitted  to  enter  into  the 
whole  realisation  and  experience  of  what  death  for  sin 
meant,  that  His  atonememt  might  be  complete.  He  was 
made  our  sin-bearer.  '  There  were  mysterious  elements  in 
Christ’s  sufferings  in  the  Garden  and  on  the  Cross  which 
showed  that  it  was  not  death  only  as  an  outward  fact 
which  He  endured,  but  death  with  all  the  darkness  and 
horror,  the  separation  from  the  comforts  of  God’s  pre¬ 
sence,  which  belong  to  it  as  the  wages  of  sin  (Mark  xiv. 
33-36  ;  xv.  34).  He  tasted  death  for  every  man  (Heb.  ii. 
9).  Entering  into  His  experience,  there  went  up  from 
His  innermost  soul,  in  J.  McLeod  Campbell’s  expressive 
phrase,  an  “Amen”  to  the  judgment  of  God  upon  our 
sin,  which  had  in  it  all  the  elements  of  a  true  and  perfect 
atonement  for  mankind,  and  was  accepted  by  God  as  such. 
Through  His  death  for  us,  we  live. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  will  be  evident  that,  when 
the  Scripture  speaks  of  “reconciliation”  with  God,  more 
is  meant  than  simply  the  reconciliation  of  man  to  God:  a 
change  of  heart  and  will  on  man’s  side.  On  God’s  side 
also  there  were  obstacles  to  forgiveness  and  fellowship. 
Though  God  loved  the  world,  its  sin  had  still  to  be  dealt 
with.  There  was  a  guilt  that  had  to  be  put  away,  a 
wrath  that  rested  on  the  sinner  (John  iii.  36),  a  condem¬ 
nation  that  had  to  be  lifted  off  (Rom.  viii.  1).  The  work 
of-reconciliation  on  God’s  side  is  accomplished  on  the 
Cross — the  grandest  expression  of  His  love  (Rom.  v.  8  ; 
1  John  iv.  9).  God  also  is  reconciled  to  the  world.  We 
are  no  more  “enemies”  (Rom.  v.  10,  in  the  objective 
sense;  cf.  xi.  28).  What  remains  is  for  man  to  appro¬ 
priate  the  reconciliation  thus  brought  to  him,  and  to  be 
himself  reconciled  to  God  ”  (2  Cor.  v.  20). 

139 


IX 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation : 

Union  with  Christ  and  its 
Blessings 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation:  Union 
with  Christ  and  its  Blessings 

THE  work  of  Jesus  for  salvation,  all  complete  as  it  is, 
cannot  and  will  not,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  benefit 
any  sinful  soul  without  something  else,  viz.,  indi¬ 
vidual  appropriation  of  Christ  and  of  the  salvation  He  has 
brought.  That  Christ  has  lived,  and  died,  and  risen 
again,  of  itself  saves  no  man  who  is  in  a  state  of  unbelief, 
or  so  long  as  he  remains  so  (John  iii.  36).  It  will  be  to 
such  an  one,  indeed,  for  his  greater  condemnation  (John 
iii.  19;  2  Cor.  ii.  16).  To  share  the  blessing  of  salvation, 
we  must  be  found,  as  the  Scripture  expresses  it,  “  in 
Christ.”  We  must,  i.e.,  be  united  with  Christ  spiritually, 
as  parts  of  His  living  body.  It  is  this  truth,  introducing 
us  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  distinguished  from 
the  work  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  which  is  now  to 
engage  us. 

Doctrinally,  the  truth  in  question  is  commonly  expressed 
by  saying  that  salvation  is  dependent  on  Union  with  Christ. 
“  He  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord,”  says  Paul,  “  is  one 
Spirit  ”  (1  Cor.  vi.  17).  “  As  the  branch  cannot  bear 

fruit  of  itself,”  says  Jesus,  “except  it  abide  in  the  vine,  so 
neither  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  Me.  .  .  .  Apart 

from  Me  ye  can  do  nothing  ”  (John  xv.  4-7).  This  union 
with  Christ  is  effected,  on  the  divine  side,  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ,  and  on  the  human  side  by  faith ,  The  work  of  the 

143 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

Holy  Spirit  in  the  soul,  uniting  to  Christ,  is  spoken  of  as 
regeneration ,  and  it  is  this  work  of  regeneration,  or  of  the 
new  birth,  we  have  first  to  try  and  understand. 

I. 

Regeneration,  or  the  new  birth ,  or  the  becoming  a  new 
creature  in  Christ  Jesus — for  all  these  terms  are  used  to 
express  this  great  change — may  be  described  as  a  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  imparting  a  new  and  holy  life  to  the 
soul,  through  which  those  experiencing  it  are  vitally 
united  to  Christ,  and  become,  in  a  real  sense,  children  of 
God,  and  members  of  His  Kingdom.  The  classical  pas¬ 
sage  on  this  subject  is  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with 
Nicodemus  in  John  iii.  1-12.  There  the  necessity  of  the 
new  birth,  and  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  effecting 
it,  are  emphatically  set  forth,  and  the  hesitations  of  the 
Jewish  ruler  are  dealt  with.  Yet  there  are  many — many 
even  in  our  churches — who  still  feel  that  there  is  some¬ 
thing  strange  in  the  teaching  of  this  passage,  and  are 
disposed,  like  Nicodemus,  to  marvel  that  the  Lord  should 
say:  “Ye  must  be  born  anew”  (ver.  7,  r.v.).  .  .  . 

“  Except  one  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  [in  ver.  3  “see”]  the  Kingdom  of  God  (ver.  5) 

.  .  .  .  “  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ;  and 

that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit  ”  (ver.  6).  There 
is  a  feeling  in  their  minds,  as  there  was  in  that  of  Nico¬ 
demus,  of  the  strangeness  of  this  spiritual  demand.  They 
repeat  the  ruler’s  question  :  “  How  can  these  things  be?” 
(ver.  9),  and  in  their  inmost  hearts  do  not  believe  in,  or 
realise,  this  need  of  regeneration.  Yet,  if  we  think  truly 
of  the  nature  of  this  change,  not  only  will  we  feel  that 
there  is  need  for  this  work  of  regeneration,  but  the  deep 
conviction  will  be  wrought  in  us  that  only  a  divine  Agent 
— God’s  own  Holy  Spirit — can  accomplish  such  a  work  in 
the  soul. 


144 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

I.  The  doctrine  of  regeneration,  in  truth,  is  only  a 
corollary  from  what  the  Bible  teaches,  on  the  one  hand, 
of  man’s  natural  condition,  as  turned  aside  from  God  in 
disposition  and  desire,  and,  on  the  other,  of  the  magni¬ 
tude  of  the  change  necessary  to  fit  a  man  for  being  in  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Consider :  What  is  this  spiritual 
change  of  which  the  Lord  speaks  ?  Put  in  plain  terms, 
does  it  not  amount  to  this  :  Such  a  revolution  in  a  man’s 
soul  that  a  man  who  has  been  living,  and  thinking,  and 
feeling,  in  his  ordinary  worldly  way,  is  brought  round 
from  that  worldly  way  of  thinking,  and  feeling,  and  willing 
to  God's  point  oj  view — to  harmony  with  the  mind  and  will 
of  God — so  that  he  now  sees  things  as  God  sees  them, 
thinks  of  things  as  God  thinks  of  them,  feels  about  things 
as  God  feels  about  them,  judges  of  things  as  God  judges 
of  them,  loves  what  God  loves,  hates  what  God  hates,  sets 
before  him  God’s  ends  as  his  own  ?  But  if  this  is  the 
true  nature  of  the  change — if  regeneration  means  really 
such  a  revolution  in  a  man’s  being  as  is  here  described — 
will  anyone  who  reflects  seriously  on  what  human  nature 
is,  as  we  experience  it  in  ourselves  and  see  it  in  others — 
who  knows  how  spiritually  impotent  and  disinclined  to 
holiness  the  natural  heart  is — doubt  for  an  instant  that,  if 
this  change  is  to  be  effected,  it  can  only  be  through  a 
higher  power  entering  the  nature,  and  working  that 
change  —  can  only  be  effected  through  the  omni¬ 
potent  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  ?  To  talk 
of  a  man  effecting  this  change  in  himself  is  as  un¬ 
reasonable  as  it  would  be  to  speak  of  a  man  taking 
himself  by  his  own  waistband  and  lifting  himself  into 
mid-air ! 

Nor  is  there  any  mystery  in  the  statement  of  Jesus  that, 
without  this  change,  a  man  cannot  “see”  or  “enter  into” 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  For  what,  again,  is  it,  in  Christ’s 
sense,  to  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  ?  It  is  not  a 

145  L 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

local  change.  It  is  not  going  from  one  place  to  another, 
as  one  might  go  from  London  to  New  York.  It  is  a 
change  of  mind,  of  heart,  of  disposition.  To  enter  into 
the  Kingdom  of  God  is  just  to  enter  into  that  mind  and 
spirit  I  have  been  describing.  In  the  very  act  of  entering 
into  that  state — of  coming  round  to  see  things  as  God 
sees  them,  to  feel  about  things  as  God  feels  about  them,  to 
judge  about  things  as  God  judges  about  them,  to  love 
what  God  loves,  and  hate  what  God  hates — we  are  enter¬ 
ing  into  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  if  we  are  not  in  that 
state,  then  we  have  not,  in  Christ’s  judgment,  entered 
into  the  Kingdom  of  God  at  all. 

Scripture,  therefore,  is  always  very  emphatic  on  these 
three  points — that  this  change  is  necessary,  that  it  is  a 
revolution  in  a  man’s  being  by  which  he  becomes  literally 
44  a  new  creature,”  or  44  new  creation  ’'  (2  Cor.  v.  17)  ;  and 
that  nothing  can  effect  this  change  but  an  act  of  omnipo¬ 
tence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart — an  exercise  of 
power  as  supernatural  and  marvellous  as  that  by  which 
God  raised  Jesus  from  the  dead  (Eph.  i.  19,  20;  ii.  1). 
The  passage  in  Ephesians  is  a  remarkable  one.  It  will  be 
observed  that  in  the  verse,  44  You  did  He  make  alive  when 
ye  were  dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins  ”  (ii.  1),  the 
words,  “did  He  make  alive,”  are  not  in  the  text,  but  in 
italics.  The  reason  is  that  this  verse  stands  exegetically 
in  connection  with  the  verses  in  the  preceding  chapter 
(i.  19,  20),  where  we  are  told  of  44  the  exceeding  greatness 
of  His  power  to  us-ward  who  believe  according  to  that 
working  of  the  strength  of  His  might  which  He  wrought 
in  Christ,  when  He  raised  Him  from  the  dead.”  44  And 
you,”  Paul  adds,  resuming  this  thought,  44  when  ye  were 
dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins,”  did  He  make 
alive  (cf.  ver.  5).  A  similar  idea  lies  in  his  figure  of  a 
44  new  creation”  (2  Cor.  v.  17).  It  is  the  omnipotent  act 
of  God  in  creation  which  is  here  in  view  {cf.  iv.  6). 

146 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

Nothing  could  more  strongly  emphasise  the  power  which 
is  involved  in  regeneration. 

2.  This  being  the  nature  of  the  change,  the  next  thing 
to  be  remarked  about  it  is,  that  while  a  supernatural 
change,  it  is  not  a  magical  change ;  that  is,  it  is  not  bound 
up  with  any  outward  rite,  like  baptism,  so  as  to  be  effected 
by  the  mere  performance  of  that  rite,  or  to  be  inseparable 
from  its  administration.  This  is  the  error  of  the  sacer- 
dotalists.  I  am  far  from  saying  that  baptism  has  no 
connection  with  the  change.  It  has  a  most  intimate 
connection  with  it  as  representing  it,  and  being  the 
symbol  of  it — as  pledging  and  sealing  its  blessing  to  the 
believer — but  there  is  no  such  necessary  connection  as 
that  baptism  ipso  facto  effects  regeneration,  or  that 
regeneration  requires  baptism  as  its  condition.  We  read 
of  those  on  whom  the  Spirit  fell,  who  were  baptized  after¬ 
wards  (Acts  x.  44,  48). 

II. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  we  look  at  the  means  or 
instrumentality  by  which  the  Spirit  of  God  effects  this 
change,  we  find  it  to  be  in  Scripture  always  one  thing, 
and  that  is  the  Word.  The  passages  which  connect 
regeneration  with  the  word  of  God  are  numerous.  When 
Christ,  the  Sower,  goes  forth  to  sow,  it  is  “the  word” 
which  is  the  seed  (Luke  viii.  11).  “  Having  been 

begotten  again,”  says  Peter,  “not  of  corruptible  seed,  but 
of  incorruptible,  through  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth 
and  abideth  ”  (1  Pet.  i.  23  ;  cf.  Jas.  i.  18).  It  is  the  word 
received  into  the  heart — the  word  believed — through 
which  the  spiritual  change  we  call  conversion  or  regenera¬ 
tion  is  brought  about  (Eph.  i.  13  ;  Col.  i.  5  ;  1  Thess.  ii. 
13,  &c.).  I  do  not,  of  course,  mean  that,  in  the  case  of 
those  who  have  not  arrived  at  years  of  intelligence,  God 
is  bound  to  this  way  of  regeneration.  Regeneration  may 
be  (in  Christian  homes  ought  normally  to  be)  in  infancy ; 

147 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

its  fruits  then  become  manifest  in  the  believing  appropria¬ 
tion  of,  and  obedience  to,  the  word,  as  character  develops. 
I  speak  of  those  who,  still  unchanged,  have  come  to  years 
of  understanding,  and  the  rule  of  God’s  dealing  with  such 
is,  unquestionably,  regeneration  through  the  word.  Hence 
we  cannot  sufficiently  exalt  the  life-giving  power  of  “the 
word  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  ”  (Col.  i.  5  ;  Heb.  iv.  12). 
We  cannot  exalt  sufficiently  the  reading  of  the  word  (Acts 
xvii.  11,  12),  the  preaching  of  the  word  (Mark  xvi.  10  ; 
Acts  xi.  20,  21;  Rom.  x.  14,  15),  instruction  in  the  word 
(Luke  i.  4;  1  Tim.  iv.  13-16;  2  Tim.  iii.  15;  iv.  2) — or  fore¬ 
tell  what  marvellous  results  may  follow  from  the  believing 
reception  of  even  a  small  fragment  of  that  word  1 

III. 

If  this  is  the  general  character  and  origin  of  the  change 
we  call  regeneration,  then  regeneration  has  what  may  be 
described  as  its  psychology — that  is,  there  is  a  process 
which  the  mind  goes  through  in  the  experience  of  this 
spiritual  change.  It  is  not  necessary,  indeed,  to  be  able 
to  analyse  this  spiritual  process  of  regeneration  in  order 
to  be  regenerated  any  more  than  it  is  necessary  to  under¬ 
stand  the  philosophy  of  perception  in  order  to  perceive 
things  around  us.  Still,  it  is  of  interest,  and  may  guard 
us  from  errors,  to  have  as  clear  an  idea  as  we  can  of  the 
process  of  this  change,  as  it  is  realised  in  the  experience  of 
the  individual.  There  is,  of  course,  a  danger  here  of  unduly 
narrowing  the  action  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  of  God 
has  innumerable  ways  of  dealing  with  human  souls.  It  is 
probable — indeed  certain — that  no  two  souls  are  brought 
into  the  Kingdom  in  precisely  the  same  way.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  we  look  closely  into  spiritual  history,  and 
are  careful  not  to  seek  to  crush  everyone’s  experience  into 
one  particular  mould,  we  will  find  that  there  are  certain 
elements  which  do,  in  some  degree,  enter  into  all 

148 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

Christian  experience  in  regeneration,  and  it  helps  as  a 
test,  and  a  guard  against  delusion  in  ourselves  and  others, 
to  remember  what  these  things  are. 

1.  The  first  step,  it  seems  to  me,  towards  this  work  of 
regeneration  is  the  awakening  of  the  soul  out  of  its 
customary  state  of  spiritual  insensibility  and  dormancy. 
“  Awake,  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and 
Christ  shall  shine  upon  thee  ”  (Eph.  v.  14).  Who  does 
not  know  how  deep  is  the  insensibility  and  torpor  to 
spiritual  things  in  which  every  natural  mind  is  involved, 
the  spiritual  sense  sealed  as  in  a  deep  slumber  to  those 
higher  realities  in  which  the  awakened  mind  lives  and 
moves,  and  has  its  being  (2  Cor.  iv.  18).  Scripture, 
accordingly,  describes  this  state  as  a  “  sleep” — asleep 
from  which  the  sinner  would  never  awaken  unless  he  were 
roused  from  it  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  speaks  of  it  even 
as  a  “  death  ” — a  spiritual  death  from  which  there  is  no 
natural  awakening  (Eph.  ii.  1).  Obviously,  then,  the  first 
thing  necessary  for  regeneration  is  that  somehow  this 
sleep  should  be  broken  in  upon,  this  dormancy  disturbed, 
the  mind  aroused  to  a  realisation  that  there  is  a  spiritual 
world  to  which  it  stands  in  relation,  and  whose  calls  and 
claims  it  is  neglecting.  How  this  comes  about  is  a 
matter  of  individual  experience.  There  are  numberless 
ways  in  which  the  Spirit  of  God  acts  upon  a  soul  to 
arouse  it  to  a  sense  of  spiritual  things,  to  awaken  it  out  of 
its  habitual  indifference  and  lethargy.  An  earthquake  did 
it  for  the  Philippian  jailor  (Acts  xvi.  26-30).  Outward 
troubles  or  misfortunes  do  it  for  some ;  a  word,  a 
remonstrance,  an  arrow  struck  home  to  the  conscience, 
may  be  the  quieter  agency  in  the  case  of  others. 

2.  It  is  not  every  kind  of  awakening,  however,  which 
results  in  regeneration.  The  peculiar  kind  of  awakening 
which  comes  into  view  here  is  that  which  has  its  origin  in 
conscience,  and  takes  the  form  of  conviction  of  sin  towards 

149 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

God.  It  does  not  seem  possible  that  anyone  can  truly 
undergo  this  spiritual  change  without  being  really  and 
inwardly  brought  to  a  realisation  of  his  sinful  condition 
before  God — the  realisation  that  he  stands  in  a  wrong 
relation  to  God,  is  under  His  displeasure,  needs  His 
forgiveness  and  cleansing.  He  will  be  brought  to  confess: 
“  Against  Thee,  Thee  only,  have  I  sinned,  and  done  that 
which  is  evil  in  Thy  sight  ”  (Ps.  li.  4).  “  If  we  say  that 

we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not 
in  us  ”  (1  John  i.  8). 

As  bringing  about  this  conviction  of  sin,  older  writers 
were  wont  to  lay  the  chief  stress  on  the  law  of  God. 
There  was  a  phrase  used  for  conviction  which  expressed 
this  idea.  It  was  called  “  law-work.”  Now,  certainly, 
there  was  a  truth  in  this.  Unless  the  law  of  God — the 
holy,  just,  and  good  law  (Rom.  vii.  12) — were  applied 
with  power  to  men’s  consciences,  they  would  not  be 
convinced  of  sin.  What  it  is  necessary  here  to  remark 
is  that  the  law  of  God  alone  will  not  produce  in  any 
soul  spiritual  contrition  such  as  we  have  to  do  with  in 
regeneration.  The  law — the  holiness — of  God,  brought 
home  to  men  will  terrify,  will  repel,  will  drive  them  to 
despair ;  it  will  not  of  itself  melt  and  subdue  their  hearts. 
For  that  there  is  needed  the  exhibition  of  the  love  and 
grace  of  God.  It  is  the  Gospel,  after  all,  which  is  the 
supreme  agency  in  melting  the  heart  into  contrition  on 
account  of  sin.  It  is  the  exhibition  of  the  mercy  of  God 
in  Christ  which  convinces  men  of  sin,  and  brings  them  to 
repentance.  The  Spirit  will  convince  of  sin,  says  Jesus, 
“  because  they  believe  not  on  Me  ”  (John  xvi.  9). 

3.  In  this  awakening  of  the  soul  to  the  consciousness 
of  sin,  there  is  already  present  a  measure  of  enlightenment , 
and  the  next  step,  I  apprehend,  in  the  work  of  regenera¬ 
tion,  is  the  growth  of  this  enlightenment  in  the  definite 
form  of  enlightenment  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ.  God  has 

150 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

revealed  to  the  soul  its  sin.  He  has  discovered  to  it  its 
need  of  salvation.  Now  He  reveals  to  it  more  and  more 
clearly  the  provision  made  for  its  need  in  Christ.  This 
enlightenment  of  mind,  as  much  as  awakening  and  con¬ 
viction  of  sin,  is  in  Scripture  always  attributed  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  “  It  is  God  that  said,  Light  shall  shine  out 
of  darkness,  who  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ  ”  (2  Cor.  iv.  6).  Paul’s  prayer  for  his  converts  is 
that  God  will  give  them  “a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revela¬ 
tion  in  the  knowledge  of  Him  [Christ]  ”  (Eph.  i.  18).  It 
is  the  Spirit’s  work  to  take  of  the  things  of  Christ  and 
show  them  unto  us  (John  xvi.  14,  15). 

4.  But  the  work  of  regeneration  is  still  not  complete ; 
there  is  something  needed  beyond  enlightenment.  The 
will  of  God  for  our  salvation  has  not  only  to  be  under¬ 
stood  ;  it  has  to  be  obeyed.  There  is  the  will  still  to  be 
laid  hold  of — the  will,  that  centre  and  citadel  of  the 
personal  being.  The  work  of  the  Spirit,  therefore,  is 
directed,  finally,  to  the  renewal  of  the  will.  It  is  directed 
to  this  end — (1)  In  the  form  of  persuasion.  It  need  hardly 
be  said  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  no  part  of  His  work  in  the 
soul  by  violence.  There  is  no  attempt  to  override  the 
freedom  of  man.  Everything  that  God  accomplishes, 
even  in  the  most  striking  exercise  of  His  power,  is 
accomplished  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  nature 
He  Himself  has  given  us.  He  uses  no  force,  but  most 
graciously,  most  lovingly,  brings  His  persuasions  to  bear 
upon  men’s  wills,  and  by  the  power  of  appropriate 
motives,  sweetly  draws  them  to  the  acceptance  of  Christ 
(Hos.  xi.  4  ;  John  vi.  37,  44).  (2)  But  more  is  needed 

than  persuasion.  There  is  not  only  the  persuasion,  but 
what  I  would  venture  to  call  the  potentiation  of  the  will — 
the  enabling  of  the  will ;  that  is,  the  imparting  to  it  of  the 
power  that  is  needful  in  order  to  the  laying  hold  of  Christ 

I5I 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

in  firm  and  fast  faith.  We  read  of  believers  as  “  strength¬ 
ened  with  power  through  His  Spirit  in  the  inward  man  ” 
(Eph.  iii.  16).  We  have  just  read  of  the  believer  as  raised 
from  the  dead  by  the  power  of  God’s  might  (Eph.  i.  19, 
20).  This  is  the  might  of  God  manifested  in  the  will  of 
man,  giving  it  the  power,  the  strength,  to  do  what  other¬ 
wise  it  could  not  do.  (3)  The  work  of  regeneration  is 
completed  when  the  soul  is  brought  to  the  point  of  absolute 
surrender  of  itself  to  Christ — when,  persuaded  and  drawn 
by  the  Spirit,  enabled  by  the  Spirit,  raised  from  death  by 
the  power  of  God,  it  yields  itself  up  with  full  assent  to 
God  in  Christ  in  the  Gospel,  receives  Christ  as  its  Saviour 
and  Lord,  thenceforth  to  live  in  reliance  on  Him  and  in 
union  with  Him.  In  the  same  act  it  enters  into  the  life — 
the  salvation — of  God.  Thus  on  its  twofold  side — the 
Spirit  uniting  the  soul  to  Christ,  faith  appropriating  Christ 
as  its  own — union  with  Christ  is  effected,  and  the  new  life 
of  regeneration  is  begun. 


IV. 

By  faith  we  are  united  with  Christ  on  the  human  side, 
and  it  has  been  seen  how  faith  springs  up  in  the  soul,  and 
is  an  act  of  the  whole  7iature,  quickened  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Faith  is  not  a  mere  act  of  the  understanding,  or  mere  act 
of  the  will,  or  mere  act  of  the  affections ;  it  is  the  laying 
hold  of  Christ  with  the  whole  self — mind,  will,  heart — as 
the  Gospel  presents  Him  to  us — and  the  cleaving  to  Him, 
for  all  the  ends  of  His  salvation.  It  is  this  consent  of  the 
will,  as  the  older  theologians  described  it,  to  the  assent  of 
the  understanding,  with  the  resulting  surrender  of  heart 
and  life  to  Christ  as  Saviour  and  Lord,  which  constitutes 
saving  faith.  In  using  this  expression  it  is  not  meant  as 
if  there  could  be  any  genuine  faith  in  God  which  was  not 
saving.  But  the  Gospel  being  that  revelation  of  God  in 
which  peculiarly  His  saving  will  is  set  forth,  and  Jesus 

152 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

Christ,  in  His  Person,  death,  and  resurrection,  being  the 
centre  and  substance  of  that  revelation,  He  is,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  the  particular  object  of  faith  in  relation 
to  salvation.  It  is  in  faith  that  the  bond  is  constituted 
between  Him  and  the  soul  which  effects  salvation.  This 
is  God’s  command,  accordingly,  that  “  we  believe  on  Him 
whom  He  hath  sent  ”  (John  vi.  29  ;  1  John  iii.  23). 

It  will  be  observed,  however,  that  with  faith,  in  Scrip¬ 
ture,  is  generally  comprised  another  grace,  viz.,  repentance, 
as  a  condition  of  salvation ;  and  the  question  has  often 
been  raised  as  to  the  relation  of  these  graces ;  in 
particular,  as  to  which  has  the  priority.  “Testifying,” 
says  Paul,  “both  to  Jews  and  to  Greeks  repentance 
toward  and  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ”  (Actsxx. 
21).  Does  repentance,  then,  precede  faith,  as  these 
words  might  seem  to  imply,  or  does  faith  precede  repent¬ 
ance  ?  The  true  answer  to  this  question  is  that  the  acts 
distinguished  by  these  terms  are  really  inseparable,  and 
spring  from  the  same  state  of  soul,  of  which  they  are  little 
more  than  different  poles  or  aspects.  Repentance  is  a 
turning  from  sin  to  God  ;  faith  is  a  turning  to  God  in 
Christ  for  salvation ;  and  it  would  be  as  reasonable  to 
ask,  in  the  case  of  a  man  turning  from  east  to  west, 
whether  his  turning  from  the  east,  or  his  turning  to  the 
west,  came  first,  as  to  ask  whether  repentance  precedes 
faith,  or  faith  repentance. 

This  will  appear  at  once  when  the  relations  of  faith  and 
repentance  are  more  closely  considered.  Is  it  not,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  case,  that  there  can  be  no  true  “repentance 
toward  God  ”  which  has  not  a  germ  of  faith  in  it — not 
only  of  faith  in  God  Himself  (Heb.  xi.  6),  but  a  germ  of 
faith,  of  hope,  in  the  mercy  of  God?  You  cannot  call 
men  to  turn  to  God  in  repentance  unless  there  is  mercy 
for  them  to  turn  to  ;  and  it  has  already  been  seen  that  it 
needs  faith  in  this  mercy  to  draw  men  to  God.  The 

*53 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

Westminster  Assembly’s  answer  on  “  Repentance  ”  in  its 
Catechism  brings  this  out  very  beautifully.  It  describes 
repentance  as  “  A  saving  grace,  whereby  a  sinner,  out  of 
a  true  sense  of  his  sin,  and  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God 
in  Christ,  doth,  with  grief  and  hatred  of  his  sin,  turn  from 
it  unto  God,  with  full  purpose  of,  and  endeavour  after, 
new  obedience.”  On  the  other  hand,  is  it  not  as  true 
that  there  can  be  no  real  “  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ” — no  genuine  saving  faith — which  does  not  spring 
from  a  heart  broken  and  contrite  on  account  of  its  sin  ? 
Faith,  in  short,  takes  us  up  just  where  repentance  leaves 
us.  Repentance  leaves  us  at  the  footstool  of  the  divine 
mercy,  confessing  our  sins,  acknowledging  the  justice  of 
God’s  condemnation  of  them,  and  imploring  His  forgive¬ 
ness.  Faith  points  us  to  Him  through  whom  forgiveness 
and  salvation  come. 

The  two  states,  therefore,  are  inseparable.  There  is  a 
“sorrow  of  the  world  ”  which  “  worketh  death  ”  (2  Cor. 
vii.  10),  but  this  is  not  evangelical  repentance — the 
“godly  sorrow,”  which  “worketh  repentance  unto  sal¬ 
vation.”  There  is  a  “  faith  ”  which  trembles  at  God’s 
word — “the  demons  also  believe,  and  shudder”  (Jas.  ii. 
19) — but  it  is  not  “  the  obedience  of  faith  ”  (Rom.  xvi.  26) 
which  springs  from  a  truly  penitent  heart,  and  is  fruitful 
in  every  good  work  (Gal.  v.  6;  Jas.  ii.  18). 

V. 

In  this  state  of  union  with  Christ,  brought  about 
through  living  faith,  it  now  results  that  the  soul  is  put  in 
possession  of  the  blessings  of  Christ’s  salvation  in  their 
proper  relation  and  order.  I  speak  of  “relation  and 
order,”  because,  although  a  full  salvation  is  at  once 
assured  to  faith  (Eph.  i.  3),  and  “earnests”  of  it  are 
bestowed  (Rom.  viii.  23  ;  2  Cor.  i.  22;  Eph.  i.  14),  the 
believer  is  not  at  once  put  in  actual  possession  of  all  its 

154 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

blessings.  The  full  and  perfect  salvation  is  reserved  for 
the  future,  e.g.,  in  the  resurrection,  and  eternal  life  in 
heaven  (Rom.  viii.  23  ;  Phil.  iii.  20,  21  ;  1  Pet.  i.  3-5). 
“  In  hope  were  we  saved  ”  (Rom.  viii.  24).  And  I  speak 
of  the  “  proper  ”  order  in  the  bestowal  of  these  blessings, 
for  in  the  nature  of  the  case  one  blessing  is  conditioned 
by  another.  Pardon,  e.g.,  is  a  condition  of  sanctification; 
holiness  is  a  condition  of  “  seeing  the  Lord  ”  (Matt.  v.  8  ; 
Heb.  xii.  14)  ;  fidelity  is  a  condition  of  reward  (Matt.  xxv. 
16-30;  Luke  xix.  12-27).  Looking  at  the  blessings 
bestowed  in  the  earthly  state  on  every  soul  that  is 
brought  to  true  faith  in  Christ,  we  specially  distinguish 
these  three,  which  embrace  within  themselves  many 
others. 

1.  There  is  forgiveness,  and  that  setting  of  the  soul 
right  with  God  with  reference  to  its  guilt  and  condemna¬ 
tion,  which  is  designated  by  Paul  its  justification.  The 
word  “justify  ”  in  the  Apostle’s  use  has  often  been  twisted 
from  its  true  meaning  in  the  attempt  to  give  it  a  sense 
which  does  not  belong  to  it.  As  every  Greek  lexicon  will 
show,  the  word  “justify”  does  not,  and  cannot,  mean  the 
“  making  righteous  ”  in  the  sense  of  inwardly  sanctifying. 
It  has  but  one  meaning  throughout  the  New  Testament. 
It  means  to  “  pronounce  ”  or  to  “  declare”  righteous.  It 
is  the  opposite  of  to  “condemn.”  The  Apostle  says: 
“Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God’s  elect  ? 
It  is  God  that  justifieth ;  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  ” 
(Rom.  viii.  33,  34).  Here  the  antithesis  is  clearly 
apparent.  The  believer  is  cleared  from  all  charge;  is  set 
free  from  condemnation  (Rom.  viii.  1).  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church  and  others  change  this  into  making  a 
man  inwardly  righteous.  They  confuse  justification  with 
regeneration  and  sanctification,  and  connect  it  with  bap¬ 
tism  as  its  instrument.  This  is  not  Paul’s  teaching.  To 
“justify,”  in  Paul’s  sense,  means  that  God  declares  us  to 

*55 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

be  clear  in  His  sight  from  all  the  guilt  and  condemnation 
that  rested  upon  us  in  our  sinful  condition. 

Well,  but,  it  may  be  said,  is  not  this  an  unreal  thing — 
a  species  of  “  legal  fiction  ”  ?  No ;  it  is  not  unreal,  and 
not  fiction.  Justification  means  forgiveness,  but  it  is 
more.  It  is  not  mere  amnesty.  It  is  forgiveness  of  the 
sinner  on  a  righteous  basis.  And  what  is  this  righteous 
basis  ?  It  is  simply  the  complete  atonement  that  Christ 
has  made  for  sin.  The  sinner  is  pronounced  free  from 
guilt  because,  in  his  union  with  Christ,  he  actually  is  so. 
Christ  has  met  and  satisfied  every  claim  the  law  had  upon 
him;  so  that  “  there  is  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
that  are  in  Christ  Jesus  ”  (Rom.  viii.  i).  “  Being  justified 
freely  through  His  grace,”  the  Apostle  says  elsewhere, 
‘‘through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom 
God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith,  in  His 
blood.  .  .  .  for  the  showing  of  His  righteousness  at 

this  present  season :  that  He  might  Himself  be  just,  and 
the  Justifier  of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus  ”  (Rom.  iii. 
24-26).  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  unreal  in  the  position 
which  the  justified  person  occupies  towards  God.  Un¬ 
righteous  in  himself,  he  acquires  a  righteousness  through 
His  union  with  Christ  by  faith.  Still  to  quote  Paul  : 
“  Him  who  knew  no  sin  He  [God]  made  to  be  sin  on  our 
behalf ;  that  we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  Him”  (2  Cor.  v.  21).  As  Beza  put  it:  “O  Christ,  I 
am  Thy  sin  ;  Thou  art  my  righteousness.” 

Justification  is  by  faith  alone,  though  “  not,”  as  Luther 
also  said,  “  by  a  faith  which  is  alone.”  In  it  sin  is  blotted 
out,  and  the  believer  stands  as  righteous  before  God. 
Righteousness  is  reckoned  to  him  apart  from  works  (Rom. 
iv.  6).  This  is  expressed  in  various  ways.  “To  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  believeth  in  Him  that  justifieth  the 
ungodly,  his  faith  is  reckoned  for  [or  unto]  righteous¬ 
ness”  (Rom.  iv.  5).  Or  he  “becomes  the  righteousness 

15b 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

of  God”  in  Christ  (2  Cor.  v.  21) — the  “  righteousness  of 
God”  here  and  elsewhere  denoting  the  righteousness  pro¬ 
vided  by  God  for  sinners  in  the  Gospel  (Rom.  iii.  21-26). 
Or  he  “  is  found  in  Him  [Christ] ,  not  having  a  righteous¬ 
ness  of  [his]  own,  even  that  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that 
which  is  through  faith  in  Christ,  the  righteousness  which 
is  from  God  by  faith  ”  (Phil.  iii.  9).  In  this  new  relation 
he  is  interested  in  every  blessing  which  Christ,  by  His 
obedience  and  death  has  won  for  men  (Rom.  v.  17,  21). 

It  is  in  Paul  that  this  doctrine  of  justification  is  most 
fully  developed,  but  everywhere  in  the  New  Testament 
the  blessing  put  in  the  forefront  of  the  Gospel  is  the  for¬ 
giveness  of  sins  and  acceptance  with  God,  as  an  act  of 
free  grace  to  believers,  on  the  ground  of  Christ’s  pro¬ 
pitiatory  death.  And  this  is  the  Pauline  doctrine  in 
essence. 

2.  Justification  has  to  do  with  the  judicial  aspect  of 
God’s  character ;  but  there  is  another  aspect  of  that 
character  which  must  not  be  overlooked — the  personal  or 
paternal ;  and  this  finds  expression  in  the  New  Testament 
in  the  place  given  to  adoption  as  a  blessing  of  salvation. 
This  is  a  side  of  Christian  truth  which  has  not  always 
received  the  attention  it  deserves — a  neglect  the  more  to 
be  regretted  that  the  doctrine  furnishes  the  reply  to  the 
objection  sometimes  made,  that  “justification”  presents 
our  relations  with  God  in  salvation  in  too  exclusively 
“  legal  ”  a  light.  It  would  do  so  if  it  stood  alone  ;  but  it 
does  not  stand  alone.  Adoption,  by  certain  writers,  has 
been  treated  as  part  of  justification — as  the  positive  side 
of  it,  in  acceptance.  But  this  is  not  warranted.  If  it  is 
wrong  to  merge,  as  many  do,  God’s  character  as  Judge  in 
that  of  Father,  it  is  as  wrong  to  merge  His  character  of 
Father  in  that  of  Judge,  and  overlook  that  God’s  relation 
to  us  is  personal  as  well  as  judicial.  God  does  not  merely 
pardon  the  sinner  by  way  of  legal  acquittal.  There  is  the 

157 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

outflow  of  paternal  tenderness,  paternal  forgiveness, 
paternal  grace  (c/.,  the  Prodigal,  Luke  xv.  20-24) ;  and  the 
soul  that  comes  to  Him  is  received  by  Him  into  a  relation 
of  sonship — not  merely  that  forfeited  sonship  which  was 
its  destination  by  creation,  but  a  relation  of  honour,  near¬ 
ness  and  privilege,  analogous  to  Christ’s  own.  “  If 
children,  then  heirs:  heirs  of  God  and  joint-heirs  with 
Christ”  (Rom.  viii.  17). 

This  is  the  idea  of  “adoption  ”  of  which  Paul  makes  so 
much,  and  which  is  sufficiently  distinct  from  the  judicial 
acquittal  to  warrant  special  mention.  But  the  idea  has 
its  spiritual  side  as  well.  To  the  act  of  adoption  corres¬ 
ponds  the  new  nature  received  in  regeneration,  and  the 
spirit  of  sonship  bestowed  on  believers.  Believers  are 
“born”  or  “begotten”  of  God,  and  are  His  children 
through  the  new  life  received  from  God  (John  i.  12,  13  ; 
1  John  iii.  g,  10  ;  v.  4).  On  those  who  are  His  children 
God  bestows  His  Spirit  (Rom.  viii.  15).  “  Because  ye  are 
sons,  God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  His  Son  into  our  hearts, 
crying,  Abba,  Father  ”  (Gal.  iv.  6).  Sonship  in  the 
Gospel  is  thus  an  act  of  grace,  and  no  terms  are  deemed 
adequate  to  extol  its  privilege  (1  John  iii.  1,  2.). 

Here,  again,  the  question  will  be  asked — “  But  are  not 
all  men  sons  of  God?  ”  I  sought  before  to  show  what 
truth  there  is  in  this  idea  of  a  universal  fatherhood  of  God 
to  men.  Sonship  doubtless  lay  in  the  creation  destiny  of 
man.  The  filial  spirit  is  the  ideal  in  man’s  relation  to 
God.  This  is  true,  but  man  by  sin  forfeited  that  destiny 
— made  it  impossible  of  realisatiou  on  a  creation  basis.  If 
it  was  to  be  realised  at  all,  it  could  only  be  on  a  basis  of 
redemption.  It  is  the  redemption  of  Christ  alone  which 
can  restore  the  lost  privilege  of  sonship.  But  Christ  does 
not  merely  bring  us  back  to  the  creation  standing.  He 
introduces  us  into  the  far  higher,  nobler,  diviner  relation 
to  the  Father  already  described.  Hence  it  is  that  in  the 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

New  Testament  we  read  so  little  of  the  merely  natural 
relation,  and  so  much  of  the  glory  of  the  spiritual  relation 
of  sonship  to  God.  “  Who  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  ” 
(John  i.  12). 

3.  The  third  great  blessing  which  springs  from  union 
with  Christ  is  that  life  of  progressive  holiness  which  we 
describe  by  the  word  sanctification.  To  “  sanctify  ”  is  to 
make  holy.  The  word  “  holy,”  it  is  well  known,  has  two 
meanings  in  the  New  Testament.  It  means  (1)  that 
which  is  separated  or  set  apart  for  the  service  of  the  holy 
God ;  and  (2)  in  respect  of  moral  beings,  it  means  the 
possession  of  the  actual  character  of  moral  purity  answer¬ 
ing  to  that  separation.  So  Paul  speaks  of  believers  as 
“  called  saints  ”  (1  Cor.  i.  2) — i.e.,  holy  persons  set  apart 
by  their  very  calling  for  the  service  of  a  holy  God,  con¬ 
secrated  to  Him  ;  but  in  respect  of  character,  the  same 
persons  are  exhorted  to  the  realisation  of  holiness — 
“  Having  therefore  these  promises,  let  us  cleanse  ourselves 
from  all  defilement  of  flesh  and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness 
in  the  fear  of  God”  (2  Cor.  vii.  1). 

In  one  sense,  therefore,  sanctification  is,  or  ought  to  be, 
complete  at  once,  i.e.,  the  believer  is,  in  the  true  idea  of  his 
calling,  a  person  from  the  first  entirely  God’s — wholly 
separated  to  God  (Rom.  xii.  1)  ;  in  another  sense  sancti¬ 
fication  is  progressive — a  holiness  of  character  which  is  only 
gradually  or  progressively  attained.  But  it  is  always  the 
consciousness  of  the  standing  which  should  prescribe  the 
aim,  and  govern  and  control  the  effort.  “  Even  so, 
reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto 
God  in  Jesus  Christ”  (Rom.  vi.  n).  Even  where  holi¬ 
ness  is  imperfect — and  in  whom  is  it  not  ? — consecration 
may  at  least,  always  be  perfect  in  aim,  in  spirit,  in  motive, 
in  desire.  This  is  what  the  Bible  means  by  being 
“  perfect,”  or  whole-hearted,  towards  God  (Num.  xiv.  24  ; 

159 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

Job.  i.  i,  8  ;  Ps.  xxxvii.  37;  ci.  2,  &c.).  Sanctification  on 
one  side  is  the  progressive  development  of  the  life  already 
imparted  in  regeneration,  and  the  Agent,  as  in  regeneration 
itself,  is  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  or  God  Himself  working  in 
the  soul/4 both  to  will  and  to  work  for  His  good  pleasure” 
(Phil.  ii.  13  ;  Heb.  xiii.  20,  21).  But  sanctification,  as  a 
progressive  work  in  which  man  co-operates,  has  laws  and 
conditions  which  create  obligation  and  call  for  effort. 
In  respect  of  this  human  side,  sanctification  has  both 
a  negative  and  a  positive  aspect — the  one  expressed  by  what 
Paul  calls  dying  to  sin ;  the  other  by  living  to  righteous¬ 
ness  (Rom.  vi.  2,  11,  13,  16,  &c.).  The  former,  which 
has  for  its  motive  the  thought  of  having  died  to  sin  with 
Christ  in  His  death  (Rom.  vi.  2-11),  includes  the  mortifica¬ 
tion  of  sin  in  the  flesh  (Rom.  vi.  12;  viii.  13;  Col.  iii.  5), 
habitual  self-denial  in  what  is  ungodly  and  wrong  (Tit.  ii. 
12),  and  the  keeping  of  the  body  under  that  the  spirit  may 
rule  (1  Cor.  ix.  27).  The  latter,  which  connects  itself  with 
the  thought  of  having  risen  with  Christ  to  newness  of  life 
(Rom.  vi.  4,  5  ;  Col.  iii.  5),  includes  the  growth  and 
strengthening  of  all  the  elements  of  holy  character 
through  growing  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  increasing 
participation  in  His  Spirit,  with  the  use  of  all  bodily 
and  mental  faculties  in  the  service  of  righteousness  (Rom. 
vi.  13,  19). 

It  follows  from  this  description  that  the  indispensable 
conditions  of  sanctification  are  the  possession  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  and  walking  in  the  Spirit  (Rom.  viii.  1-16;  Gal.  v. 
16-26).  In  this  connection  an  important  distinction  is  to 
be  drawn  between  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  producing 
faith.  i,e.f  in  initial  regeneration,  and  the  bestowal  of  the 
Spirit  on  those  who  have  been  brought  to  faith.  There  is 
a  work  of  the  Spirit  which  precedes  and  issues  in  faith,  and 
there  is  a  reception  of  the  Spirit  through  faith,  which 
results  in  what  is  peculiarly  termed  the  indwelling  of  the 

160 


The  Spirit  in  Salvation 

Spirit.  Till  faith  is  present,  the  Spirit  is,  in  a  sense,  still 
acting  on,  rather  than  within,  the  soul  ;  when  faith  opens 
the  way  for  His  entrance,  He  can  unite  Himself  with  the 
being  in  its  inmost  recesses — become  its  very  life.  Hence 
such  language  as  that  of  Jesus  :  “  He  that  believeth  on 
Me.  .  .  .  from  within  him  shall  flow  rivers  of  living 

water  ”  (John  vii.  38) ;  and  His  promises  that  He  and  the 
Father  will  take  up  their  abode  with  those  who  love 
Him  (John  xiv.  21-23).  Hence  such  passages  as  Rom. 
viii.  14-16;  2  Cor.  i.  22;  Gal.  iv.  6  Because  ye  are 
sons,  God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  the  Son  into  our 
hearts  ” ;  and  Eph.  i.  13 — “  In  whom,  having  also 
believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
promise,”  with  many  more. 

The  standard  of  sanctification  is  the  divine  perfection 
— nothing  less.  So  declares  Jesus  (Matt.  v.  48) ;  and  so 
says,  or  implies,  every  writer  in  the  New  Testament 
(2  Cor.  xiii.  9 ;  1  Thess.  v.  23 ;  Heb.  xiii.  20,  21  ; 
1  Pet.  i.  14-16,  &c.).  This  means,  for  the  Christian,  perfect 
conformity  to  the  image  of  Christ  (2  Cor.  iii.  18).  “  An 

unattainable  ideal,”  some  one  will  perhaps  say,“  better  give 
us  something  lower.”  Spurgeon,  in  dealing  with  a  similar 
objection,  once  said:  “No,  when  I  wish  my  child  to 
learn  to  write,  I  give  him  the  most  perfect  copy  I  can 
find.”  This  does  not  mean,  even  in  the  most  Spirit-filled 
person,  the  attainment  of  the  ideal,  so  that  he  dare  say, 
“  I  am  without  sin  ”  (cf.  1  John  i.  10).  The  writer  once 
heard  Mr.  Spurgeon,  in  his  illustrated  lecture  on 
“  Candles,”  make  a  pertinent  remark  on  this  head.  He 
took  a  full,  clear-burning  wax  candle,  and,  pointing  to  its 
bright  flame,  said,  “  There  is  your  perfect  man.”  Then, 
holding  over  it  a  polished  reflector,  he  showed  how  the 
interior  was  soon  covered  with  a  fine  soot.  “  What  shall 
we  call  it  ?  ”  he  said,  “The  ‘  superfluity  of  naughtiness ’ !  ” 
This  only  we  know,  that  what  is  not  attained  here,  will 

161  M 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

be  attained  hereafter.  Presented  “  holy,  and  without 
blemish,  and  unreprovable,  before  Him  ”  (Col.  i.  22) — 
“  Not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing  ”  (Eph. 
v.  27) — “  We  shall  be  like  Him  ;  for  we  shall  see  Him 
even  as  He  is  ”  (1  John  iii.  2). 


X 


Eternity  and  its  Issues 
Advent  and  Judgment 


Eternity  and  its  Issues: 

Advent  and  Judgment 

I  AM  to  speak  in  this  last  study  on  the  future,  on  which 
we  have  the  light  of  prophecy,  shining  as  in  a  dark 
place  (2  Pet.  i.  19),  to  guide  us,  but  regarding  which 
there  are  still  many  things  on  which  Christian  people 
differ,  and  are  perplexed.  I  shall  not  enter  into  these 
minuter  points  of  difference,  but,  keeping  to  the  plan  I 
have  been  following,  will  deal  with  those  great,  out¬ 
standing  truths,  that  seem  to  belong  to  the  essence  of  the 
Christian  faith. 


I. 

The  issues  of  redemption  are  in  eternity,  and  are  con¬ 
nected  in  Scripture  with  the  Lord's  “ Parousia,”  or  Second 
Coming.  To  this  subject,  therefore,  I  first  direct 
attention. 

It  is  disputed  by  hardly  any  that  our  Lord  did  predict 
His  Personal  return  in  glory  to  judge  the  world,  and 
bring  in  His  everlasting  kingdom,  or  that  this  was  a  fixed 
article  of  belief  in  the  Apostolic  age.  What  is  said  in 
criticism  of  the  belief  is  that  “the  mere  effluxion  of  time,” 
as  Prof.  Huxley  put  it  in  one  of  his  Essays,  “  has  demon¬ 
strated  it  to  be  a  prodigious  error.”  The  critics  do  not 
doubt  that  this  Coming  was  predicted  and  looked  for. 
But  they  remind  us  that  nearly  1900  years  have  gone  by, 
and  Christ  has  not  come  yet.  Therefore  these  beliefs  and 

165 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

hopes  of  the  early  Christians  are  proved  by  events  to 
have  been  a  mistake.  There  were  in  Peter’s  time  already 
those  who  asked  :  “  Where  is  the  promise  of  His  coming? 
for,  from  the  day  that  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things 
continue  as  they  were  from  the  beginning  of  the  Crea¬ 
tion  ”  (2  Pet.  iii.  4). 

Now  the  fact  on  which  these  objectors  base  must  be 
acknowledged  :  viz.,  that  well-nigh  1900  years  have  gone 
by,  and  Jesus  has  not  returned  yet  in  Personal  glory.  The 
declarations  in  the  New  Testament  that  “  the  Lord  is  at 
hand  ”  (Phil.  iv.  5  ;  cf.  Jas.  v.  8),  and  all  the  other  state¬ 
ments  that  seem  to  look  for  the  near  coming  of  the  Lord, 
have  to  face  this  fact,  and  in  some  way  be  reconciled  with 
it,  if  the  hope  is  not  to  be  given  up.  My  own  attitude  is 
that  of  faith  in  the  final  Personal  return  of  Christ.  But  the 
fact  remains  that  this  long  interval  has  elapsed  since  the 
promises  were  given,  and  it  may  fairly  be  asked,  “  If 
nearly  2,000  years  have  already  elapsed,  why  not  3,000,  or 
more  ?  ” 

In  seeking  a  solution  of  this  problem  helpful  light  may 
be  obtained  by  keeping  in  view  some  of  the  features  of 
Old  Testament  prophecy  of  the  approaching  “Day  of  the 
Lord.”  For  in  the  Old  Testament  also  you  have  a  steady 
outlook  on  a  great  consummating  day  of  the  world’s 
history.  All  through  prophecy  there  is  this  “  Day  of  the 
Lord  ”  looming  up  as  the  background  of  the  particular 
crisis  in  which  the  nation  was  at  the  time  involved 
(Assyrian,  Babylonian,  Maccabaean)  ;  you  have  it  depicted 
as  the  goal  to  which  all  events  in  time  are  moving  on  ; 
whatever  obscurity  may  rest  on  the  steps  by  which  the 
end  is  to  be  reached,  there  is  no  dubiety  felt  about  the 
end  itself.  God’s  purpose  shall  be  accomplished  ;  His 
kingdom  shall  triumph ;  whatever  opposes  itself  to  that 
and  resists  it  shall  be  shattered  and  destroyed.  By 
observing  the  principles  which  regulate  Old  Testament 

166 


Eternity  and  its  Issues 

prophecy  on  this  subject,  we  gain  a  clue  to  some  of 
the  difficulties  in  the  predictions  of  the  Lord’s  Coming. 

One  or  two  remarks  are  necessary  at  the  outset  to  set 
the  subject  in  its  proper  perspective. 

1.  The  first  remark  is,  that  I  do  not  think  we  can,  in 
the  light  of  the  New  Testament,  affirm  that  it  was  given 
to  the  Apostles,  or  to  the  Church,  to  know  the  precise  time 
of  the  Lord’s  return,  or  the  interval  that  would  elapse,  in 
the  Father’s  counsels,  before  that  event  would  take  place. 
The  fact  itself  they  knew,  but  it  was  not  given  to  them — 
it  was  definitely  withheld  from  them — to  know  when  the 
event  should  be.  There  can  be  no  doubt  about  this,  because 
it  is  clearly  stated.  “  It  is  not  for  you,”  Jesus  says  to  the 
disciples,  “  to  know  times  or  seasons,  which  the  Father 
hath  set  within  His  own  authority  ”  (Acts  i.  7).  And  there 
is  that  far  stronger  passage,  to  which  I  formerly  referred, 
in  which  Jesus  says  :  “  But  of  that  day  or  that  hour 
knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither 
the  Son,  but  the  Father  ”  (Mark  xiii.  32  ;  cj.  Matt, 
xxiv.  36  ;  Rev.  v.).  The  Son  Himself  did  not  know. 

2.  The  second  thing  is,  that  it  is  far  from  clear  that 
Jesus  predicted,  or  that  the  Apostles  believed,  that  the 
Advent  would  necessarily  be  in  that  generation,  or  in  quite 
so  short  a  time  as  is  sometimes  imagined.  I  do  not  mean 
that  the  Apostles  postponed  the  Coming  in  their  thoughts 
to  a  far  distant  time  ;  but  I  mean  that  there  are  many 
things  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  many  things  in  the 
parables,  many  things  in  the  Epistles,  many  things 
in  the  Book  of  Revelation  which  point  to  a  some¬ 
what  prolonged  development.  Jesus  speaks,  e.g.,  of  a 
period  of  delay  which  would  try  the  faith  and  patience  of 
His  servants  (Matt.  xxv.  5, 19 ;  Luke  xviii.  7,  8 ;  xix.  nff)  ; 
of  manifold  persecutions,  when  His  disciples  would  be 
brought  before  governors  and  kings  of  the  Gentiles  (Matt, 
x.  18) ;  of  a  secret  growth  of  His  kingdom  (Mark  iv.  26-28), 

167 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

and  the  gradual  ripening  of  good  and  evil  in  the  world 
till  the  final  harvest  (Matt.  xiii.  30,  39-42) ;  of  a  protracted 
interval,  filled  with  world-shaking  events,  during  which 
the  love  of  many  would  grow  cold  (Matt.  xxiv.  12,  13). 
He  speaks  of  a  world-wide  evangelisation,  of  a  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  of  disciples  gathered  from 
all  nations  (Matt.  xxiv.  14  ;  xxviii.  19,  20 ;  Mark  xvi.  15  ; 
Luke  xxiv.  47  ;  Acts  i.  8). 

Paul,  in  like  manner,  when  the  Thessalonians  thought 
that  the  Lord’s  Coming  was  “just  at  hand,”  writes  to 
them  in  his  second  Epistle  to  warn  them  not  to  be  shaken 
in  mind,  as  if  that  day  was  immediately  impending  (2 
Thess.  ii.  2),  and  goes  on  to  tell  them  that  that  day  would 
not  come  till  there  had  been  a  great  Apostasy,  and  the 
Man  of  Sin  had  been  revealed  :  even  then,  apparently, 
would  not  come  till  that  which  was  hindering  (the  Roman 
Empire?)  had  been  taken  cut  of  the  way  (ii.  3-10).  And 
again,  in  Rom.  xi.,  he  sketches,  on  a  large  scale,  a  kind  of 
philosophy  of  history,  in  which  events  are  mentioned,  as 
the  ingathering  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  conversion 
of  Israel  consequent  on  that  (verses  25-32),  which 
necessarily  must  consume  much  time.  It  could  not  be 
supposed  by  anyone  reflecting  on  the  subject  that  a  month, 
or  year,  or  many  years,  would  suffice  to  cover  all  these 
events.  Yet  no  one,  I  think,  would  have  been  more 
surprised  than  Paul,  or  any  of  these  early  Christians — 
their  hearts  would  almost  have  sunk  within  them — if  they 
had  been  informed  that  Christian  people  in  the  twentieth 
century  would  still  be  discussing  the  question  as  to  when 
the  Lord  was  to  appear! 

II. 

Reverting  to  our  principles  of  prophetic  interpretation, 
let  us  look  at  their  bearing  on  this  problem  of  the  time  of 
the  Lord’s  Coming. 


168 


Eternity  and  its  Issues 

1.  It  has  been  observed  in  regard  to  Old  Testament 
prophecy  how  neglectful  it  is  of  the  element  of  time ,  and 
how  regularly  the  consummation  on  which  the  prophet’s 
eye  is  fixed  is  regarded  as  rising  immediately  behind  the 
series  of  events  which  fill  the  foreground  of  his  vision. 
Times  and  seasons  were  not  known  to  him,  and  it  was 
left  to  Providence  to  unfold  the  steps  leading  up  to  the 
final  Day  of  the  Lord ;  but  what  the  prophet  did  know 
was  that  the  coming  of  this  Day  was  certain,  and  was  the 
event  to  which  all  other  events  were  hastening  on.  To 
the  prophet’s  faith  and  expectancy,  therefore,  this  event 
seemed  always  near  ;  as  a  high  mountain  on  the  verge  of 
the  horizon  always  seems  at  hand,  so  this  event  loomed 
up  behind  whatever  phase  of  Providence  was  immediately 
in  view. 

Is  it,  or  could  it  have  been,  otherwise  in  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  ?  The  Lord’s  Coming  was,  beyond  doubt,  the 
great  fact  on  which  the  hope  of  the  Church  was  set ;  it 
was  the  great  event  ever  to  be  watched  and  waited  for 
(Mark  xiii.  35)  to  which  eye  and  prayer  ought  always  to 
be  directed.  Its  time,  beyond  general  indications,  was 
unknown  ;  it  stood  out,  therefore,  at  every  point,  behind 
the  immediate  conflict  with  the  powers  of  the  world — 
behind  Gospel  preaching,  behind  persecution,  behind 
heresies,  behind  fall  of  Jerusalem,  behind  collapse  of 
Gentile  empires — the  one  thing  to  be  looked  for,  watched 
for,  worked  for,  prayed  for,  and,  as  far  as  human  effort 
could  aid  it,  hastened. 

2.  This  last  remark  leads  to  the  mention  of  another 
principle  in  connection  with  prophecy  apt  to  be  over¬ 
looked — I  mean  its  conditionality.  This  is  a  principle  to 
which,  often,  justice  is  not  done  in  asking  the  question  : 
“  Why  has  the  Lord’s  Coming  been  so  long  delayed  ?  ”  Have 
we  ourselves — has  the  Church  of  Christ — no  responsibility 
for  that  delay  ?  We  are  apt  to  think  of  the  Lord’s  Coming 

169 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

as  something  which  has  its  fixed  date,  to  which  our  own 
faithfulness  or  unfaithfulness  has  no  relation.  This  is  a 
mistake.  From  the  point  of  view  of  God’s  absolute 
knowledge,  no  doubt,  the  day  and  hour  of  the  Advent — like 
that  of  every  event  in  time — is  immovably  fixed.  God 
knows  all  the  circumstances  that  condition  that  event,  and 
the  very  moment  when  it  will  take  place.  In  that  sense 
the  Father,  and  He  alone,  knows  the  day  and  hour.  But 
from  the  human  point  of  view,  it  is  not  given  us  to  know 
this,  for  the  very  reason  that  the  nearness  or  farness  of 
the  Coming  depends  on  many  things  with  which  we  have 
ourselves  to  do. 

Take  our  human  life.  It  is  quite  certain  that  God 
knows  the  precise  moment  when  everyone  of  us  will  die. 
Our  times  are  in  His  hand  ;  the  hour  of  our  death  is 
known  to  Him  ;  yet  from  our  human  point  of  view,  we 
know  that  the  time  of  our  death  depends,  in  part  at  least, 
upon  ourselves  ;  that  by  proper  care  we  may,  in  all  pro¬ 
bability,  prolong  our  life,  as,  on  the  other  hand,  by  care¬ 
lessness,  profligacy,  or  exposure  to  unhealthy  conditions, 
we  can  certainly  shorten  it.  We  may  fire  a  pistol,  or 
take  poison,  and  end  our  lives  on  the  spot.  Do  these 
things  conflict  ?  They  do  not  conflict  at  all.  So  with 
reference  to  the  Lord’s  Coming.  In  the  Westminster 
Shorter  Catechism  the  second  petition  in  the  Lord’s 
Prayer,  “Thy  Kingdom  come,”  is  thus  explained: 
“  That  the  Kingdom  of  grace  may  be  advanced,  and  the 
Kingdom  of  glory  may  be  hastened .”  But  why  “  has¬ 
tened  ”  if  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  it,  no  responsibility 
for  its  retarding  or  advancement  ?  Does  anyone  believe 
that,  if  the  Church  had  been  watchful,  and  diligent,  and 
faithful,  as  it  ought  to  have  been — abounding  in  faith  and 
love  from  the  beginning — things  would  have  been  as  far 
back  as  they  are  to-day ;  that  the  end  would  not  have 
been  nearer,  or,  perhaps  reached,  long  ago  ? 

170 


Eternity  and  its  Issues 

3.  There  is  yet  another  consideration.  I  believe  we 
cannot  fairly  read  the  New  Testament  without  seeing  that 
there  is  a  Personal  Coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the 
future,  which  is  the  great  hope  of  the  Church.  But  it 
seems  to  me  just  as  plain  that,  in  both  Old  Testament 
and  New,  the  Coming  of  the  Lord  is  a  large  and  compre¬ 
hensive  phrase — that  the  “  Coming”  has,  so  to  say,  many 
providential  anticipations — designates,  in  short,  a  process, 
rather  than  the  one  single  event  in  which  it  culminates. 
Comparing  Christ’s  sayings  in  the  Gospels,  it  appears  to 
me  that,  when  He  speaks  of  His  Coming,  He  does  not 
always  mean  by  that  expression  precisely  the  same  thing. 
Jesus  says,  e.g.,  in  John  :  “  A  little  while,  and  ye  behold 
Me  not,  and  again  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  Me  . 
.  .  .  I  will  see  you  again  ”  (John  xvi.  19,  22).  This 

evidently  refers  to  His  resurrection.  Again,  He  speaks  of 
Coming  in  the  Spirit.  “  I  will  not  leave  you  desolate  ;  I 
come  unto  you”  (John  xiv.  18;  cf, xvi.  13).  Again,  He  speaks 
of  that  tremendous  judgment  which  was  to  overtake  Israel 
in  the  destruction  of  the  holy  city  and  dispersion  of  the 
people,  as  a  phase  of  His  Coming  (Matt.  xxiv.).  Behind 
all  stands  the  final  Personal  Coming  of  the  Lord — His 
Coming  in  the  future. 

Only  thus,  I  think,  can  Christ's  sayings  be  brought  into 
harmony,  e.g.,  when  He  says:  “There  are  some  of 
them  that  stand  here,  who  shall  in  no  wise  taste  of  death 
till  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  His  Kingdom” 
(Matt.  xvi.  28) — a  saying  which  Mark  gives  in  the  form  : 
“Till  they  see  the  Kingdom  of  God  come  with  power  ” 
(Mark  ix.  1),  and  Luke  gives  yet  more  simply  :  “  Till 
they  see  the  Kingdom  of  God  ”  (Luke  ix.  27) ;  or,  again, 
when  He  says  :  “  Ye  shall  not  have  gone  through  the 
cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  Man  be  come”  (Matt.  x. 
23),  I  cannot  think  it  reasonable  to  believe  that  He  is 
referring  to  events  that  lie,  perhaps,  2,000  years  in  the 

171 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

future  !  It  is  easier  to  believe  that  in  the  former  passage 
Jesus  is  referring  to  His  Coming  in  the  power,  and 
spread,  and  successes  of  His  Kingdom,  after  the  Spirit 
had  been  given  ;  and  in  the  latter,  to  the  great  pro¬ 
vidential  judgment  on  the  Jewish  nation.  Even  in  Matt, 
xxiv.  careful  observation  shows  that,  while  Christ  quite 
clearly  connects  His  Coming  with  the  great  catastrophe 
that  was  to  overtake  Jerusalem,  He  yet  as  clearly  dis¬ 
tinguishes  that  national  judgment  from  the  greater  event 
that  lay  behind  it,  of  which  it  was  the  prelude.  The  con¬ 
trast  is  indicated  in  the  distinction  which  He  makes 
between  “  these  things  ”  and  “that  day  and  hour.”  Of 
the  former  it  is  said  :  “  This  generation  shall  not  pass 
away,  till  all  these  things  be  accomplished”;  of  the 
latter:  “But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  not 
even  the  angels  of  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father  only”  (vers.  34,  36,  R.V.). 

The  one  thing  that  stands  out  clear  and  indubitable 
from  all  these  discussions  is  that  the  Lord  shall  come ,  and 
that  His  Coming  shall  be  (1)  Personal — in  like  manner  as 
men  saw  Him  ascend  (Acts  i.  12)  ;  (2)  sudden — flashing 
on  the  world  in  a  time  of  unexampled  crisis,  with  all  the 
force  of  a  great  surprise,  therefore  unmistakable  (Matt, 
xxiv.  27)  ;  (3)  glorious — in  the  glory  of  the  Father,  with  all 
the  holy  angels  (Matt.  xvi.  27  ;  xxv.  31)  ;  and  (4)  decisive 
— reducing  all  opposition  to  nothingness,  and  determining 
for  good  or  evil  the  destinies  of  mankind  (2  Cor.  v.  10). 
There  should  be  no  difficulty  in  believing  this  to  anyone 
who  really  believes  in  the  resurrection,  ascension,  and 
present  glorified  life  of  our  Lord  in  heaven.  If  the  Lord 
is  really  risen — if  He  is  really  within  the  veil  wearing  our 
humanity  in  glory — is  it  reasonable  to  believe — can  Chris¬ 
tian  faith  rest  in  the  idea — that  He  will  remain  always 
thus  invisible  ?  Is  it  not  the  most  reasonable  thing  in 
the  world  to  expect  that  there  will  be  a  manifestation  of 

172 


Eternity  and  its  Issues 

this  glorified  One  in  connection  with  the  winding  up  of 
earthly  affairs,  and  the  bringing  in  of  His  everlasting 
Kingdom  ?  Does  someone  say  :  “  He  will  be  manifested 
in  heaven  ?  ”  Yes,  but  a  great  deal  will  happen  before 
the  heavenly  Kingdom  is  reached,  and  is  it  reasonable  to 
think  that  in  the  transition  from  earth  to  heaven — from 
history  in  time  to  the  new  order  of  things  in  eternity — 
there  will  be  no  revelation,  no  manifestation,  of  the  Son 
of  Man  ?  The  Bible  says  there  will  be,  and  it  gathers  it 
up  in  the  hope  of  the  Lord’s  Coming. 

III. 

Here  numerous  questions  and  difficulties  emerge  into 
which  it  is  impossible  to  enter  at  length  in  this  brief 
study.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that,  in  accordance 
with  the  state  of  the  case  just  described,  the  Creeds  of 
the  Church  have  always  maintained  a  wise  reserve  on  the 
details  of  the  Lord’s  Coming.  They  have  announced  the 
fact,  but  they  have  not  presumed  to  define  times  and 
seasons,  or  to  settle  details.  Much  has  always  been  left 
to  private  Christian  speculation  on  these  subjects,  and 
opinions  among  Christians  have  widely  varied.  One 
difficulty  is  that,  if  we  take  the  prevailing  form  of  repre¬ 
sentation  in  the  New  Testament,  we  might  reasonably 
infer  that,  after  a  shorter  or  longer  period  in  the  world’s 
development,  during  which  both  good  and  evil  would 
ripen  and  reach  a  climax,  a  terrible  antichristian  apostasy 
(the  germs  of  which  were  already  present  in  the 
Apostolic  age  (i  John  ii.  18,  iv.  3)  would  be  revealed,  the 
course  of  events  would  be  suddenly  terminated  by  the 
Lord’s  appearance  (2  Thess.  ii.  8),  carrying  with  it  the 
resurrection  of  just  and  unjust,  the  final  judgment,  and 
the  dissolution  of  the  existing  earth  and  heaven. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  turn  to  the  Book  of  Revela¬ 
tion,  we  find  that,  in  harmony  with  Old  Testament 

!73 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

prophecies,  and  with  hints  in  the  words  of  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  (Matt.  vi.  io  ;  Mark  iv.  28  ;  Rom.  xi.  12,  25-27, 
&c.),  this  Book  would  seem  to  point,  though  not  till  after 
long  delay,  and  the  experience  of  terrible  conflicts,  to  a 
prolonged  triumph  (“  a  thousand  years  ”)  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Christ  in  the  world — the  “  millennium as  it  is  wont  to 
be  termed — during  which  the  forces  of  evil  will  be 
restrained,  and  the  powers  of  good  will  be  at  their  highest 
potency.  This  period  is  preluded  by  great  judgments  on 
the  antichristian  powers,  and  by  the  resurrection  of  the 
martyred  saints,  who  reign  along  with  Christ.  Then 
is  to  come  a  new  falling  away,  and  the  final  Advent, 
resurrection  and  judgment  (Rev.  xx.). 

How  is  this  picture  of  the  end  of  the  present  dispensa¬ 
tion  of  things  to  be  interpreted  ?  Is  the  picture  wholly 
symbolical,  as  the  general  character  of  the  Book  might 
suggest  ?  Is  the  crisis  or  world-judgment  which  intro¬ 
duces  the  latter-day  glory  purely  providential  ;  or  does 
there  shine  through  the  picture  the  idea  that  it  will  be 
attended  by  visible,  supernatural  attestations  of  Christ’s 
presence  and  power  ?  Is  the  reign  of  the  saints  with 
Christ  purely  spiritual,  or  is  there  suggested  the  idea  of  a 
literal  “first  resurrection”  of  the  martyrs  and  faithful? 
These  questions  I  must  leave  to  be  answered  by  others. 
My  own  opinion  is  that  the  distinction  between  symbol 
and  outward  fact  must  remain  more  or  less  an  uncertainty 
till  the  time  itself  shall  declare  it. 

There  is  in  itself  no  contradiction  in  supposing  that 
what,  from  the  point  of  prophetic  intuition,  as  in  the  Old 
Testament,  is  pictured  as  one  event,  may  resolve  itself  on 
nearer  survey  into  a  series  of  events,  or  successive  stages 
of  one  event ;  just  as  stars,  which  to  the  naked  eye  appear 
single,  are  resolved  by  the  telescope  into  binary  stars — 
two  stars  in  inseparable  relation. 

But  this  I  would  confess,  that  the  idea  of  a  latter  day  of 

174 


Eternity  and  its  Issues 

glory  on  this  earth  of  ours — a  period  of  Sabbath  rest  and 
realisation  of  righteousness — has  a  charm  to  my  mind, 
and  seems  to  me  to  have  its  roots  in  so  much  Old 
Testament  prediction,  that  I  cannot  willingly  forego  it ; 
nor  can  I  doubt  that,  if  such  a  happy  day  dawns  for  our 
world,  it  will  be  a  period  of  open  vision  and  of  actual 
intercommunion  between  heaven  and  earth,  such  as  we 
now  know  nothing  of — a  period  that  brings  back  those 
days  which,  just  because  of  their  inconformity  to  our 
present  experience,  we  are  apt  to  think  of  as  left  behind, 
or  to  relegate  to  an  age  of  fancy — the  days  of  Eden  and 
the  Patriarchs,  when  God  was  near  to  men  and  communed 
with  them — a  period  when  the  gates  of  intercourse  with 
heaven  will  be  reopened,  and  the  angels  of  God  will  be 
seen  ascending  and  descending,  as  in  Jacob’s  vision  (Gen. 
xxviii.  12),  but  now  “  upon  the  Son  of  Man  ”  (John  i.  51). 

But  nothing  earthly  endures,  and  even  that  blessed 
time,  if  I  have  thought  upon  it  rightly,  is  not  the  end. 
There  is  a  relapse  (Rev.  xx.  7-9) — a  new  crisis — and  last  of 
all  the  final  decisive  appearing  of  the  Lord— His  appearing 
in  His  glory,  and  in  the  glory  of  His  Father,  with  the 
holy  angels  (Matt.  xvi.  27,  xxv.  31 ;  Mark  viii.  38).  Then 
shall  come  about  the  dissolution  of  all  earthly  things,  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  great  white  throne  of  final 
judgment.  It  is  the  end-all  of  earthly  affairs.  Time  is 
finished ;  thereafter  eternity  rolls  its  unending  course. 

IV. 

On  these  dread  “  last  things,”  solemn  and  impressive 
as  they  are,  I  can  only  permit  myself  to  speak  very  briefly. 
It  has  already  been  seen  how  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
enters  as  an  integral  element  into  the  general  system  of 
Christian  truth — how  it  is  implied  in  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  man  as  a  compound  personality,  in  the  idea  of 
death  as  the  consequence  of  sin,  in  the  facts  of  Christ’s 

175 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

own  incarnation  and  resurrection,  in  the  idea  of  a  com¬ 
plete  redemption.  Paul  counted  it  a  serious  error  to  say 
that  the  resurrection  is  past  already  (2  Tim.  ii.  18) — i.e., 
to  interpret  it  in  some  purely  spiritual  sense.  The  inter¬ 
mediate  or  disembodied  state  of  believers — happy  as  that 
may  be  (2  Cor.  v.  6-8  ;  Phil.  i.  23  ;  Rev.  xiv.  13) — is  still 
not  one  of  perfected  bliss.  The  Christian  waits  “for  the 
adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body  ”  (Rom.  viii. 
23).  The  pledge  of  that  redemption  is  given  him  in  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  (1  Cor.  xv.  20). 

To  all  questions  as  to  how  this  marvel  can  be  brought 
about,  Christ  only  gives  the  answer — “  Ye  err,  not 
knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God  ”  (Matt, 
xxii.  29  ;  cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  35).  Only  let  this  caution  be 
given,  which  may  relieve  some  part  of  the  difficulty.  The 
essence  of  the  doctrine  of  resurrection  does  not  lie  in  any 
thought  of  identity  of  material  particles  between  the  old 
body  and  the  new.  Such  identity  did  exist  in  the  case  of 
Christ,  who  rose  in  the  very  body  which  three  days 
earlier  had  been  laid  in  the  tomb.  It  will  exist  in  the 
case  of  the  saints  who  are  alive  at  the  Advent,  whose 
bodies  will  be  “changed”  (1  Cor.  xv.  52;  1  Thess.  iv. 
15-17).  ^he  question  now  is,  however,  as  to  “  the  dead 
in  Christ,”  whose  bodies  have  long  decayed  ;  and  here 
the  idea  of  identity  of  material  particles  is  excluded  by 
the  language  of  the  Apostle  himself.  Using  the  analogy 
of  the  seed-corn,  he  says  :  “  Thou  sowest  not  the  body 
that  shall  be.  .  .  .  but  God  giveth  it  a  body  even  as 
it  pleased  Him  (1  Cor.  xv.  37,  38).  There  is  here  identity 
between  the  old  and  the  new,  even  as  regards  the  body  ; 
but  plainly  it  is  not  identity  of  material  substance. 

In  truth,  as  a  little  reflection  will  convince  us,  the 
identity  of  our  earthly  bodies  in  no  case  consists  in  same¬ 
ness  of  material  particles.  The  matter  in  our  bodies  is 
continually  changing ;  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  has 

176 


Eternity  and  its  Issues 

entirely  changed.  There  is  no  more  identity  in  substance 
between  the  body  of  to-day  and  the  body  of  ten  years  ago, 
than  there  is  between  the  waters  flowing  past  a  given 
point  on  successive  days.  The  bond  of  identity  lies  in 
something  deeper — in  the  abiding  organising  principle 
that  is  the  thread  of  connection  amidst  all  changes.  That 
endures,  is  not  destroyed  at  death ;  quickened  anew  into 
activity,  it  stamps  its  individuality  and  the  marks  it 
inherits  from  the  old  body  upon  the  new. 

But  there  is  a  glorious  change.  “  It  is  sown  in  corrup¬ 
tion  ;  it  is  raised  in  incorruption  ;  it  is  sown  in  dishonour; 
it  is  raised  in  glory  ;  it  is  sown  in  weakness  ;  it  is  raised 
in  power ;  it  is  sown  a  natural  body ;  it  is  raised  a 
spiritual  body”  (i  Cor.  xv.  42-44).  It  is  “ fashioned 
anew,”  “  that  it  may  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  His 
glory,  according  to  the  working  whereby  He  is  able  even 
to  subject  all  things  unto  Himself”  (Phil.  ii.  21). 

V. 

The  resurrection  is  the  prelude  to  the  judgment.  That 
God  shall  call  men  into  judgment  is  one  of  the  most 
deeply-ingrained  convictions  of  the  human  heart.  Con¬ 
science,  which  is  itself  a  kind  of  tribunal  of  divine  judg¬ 
ment,  is  a  perpetual  witness  to  it.  Heathen  religions  had 
anticipations  of  it.  Egypt,  in  particular,  gave  large  pro¬ 
minence  to  the  idea  of  judgment  after  death.  There  is  a 
judgment  of  God  in  history  ;  and  in  the  Gospel  we  have 
the  assertion  of  a  present  judgment  wrought  by  the  mani¬ 
festation  of  Christ  (John  iii.  18,  19).  But  the  doctrine  of 
the  general  judgment  in  the  New  Testament  passes 
beyond  all  this.  It  is  connected  with  the  end  of  the 
world  ;  it  is  public  and  universal ;  and  it  is  final — decisive 
of  the  destinies  of  mankind  (Matt.  xxv.  31-46 ;  Rom.  ii. 
5-11 ;  2  Cor.  v.  10 ;  Col.  iii.  24,  25  ;  Rev.  xx.  12-15). 

If  the  predictions  of  the  Lord’s  Advent  leave  us  in 

177  N 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

dubiety  about  details,  this  is  even  more  true  of  pictures  of 
the  judgment,  which  are  necessarily  couched,  in  large 
degree,  in  figurative  or  parabolic  form.  But  nothing  can 
be  clearer  than  the  great  outstanding  features  of  the 
event.  The  judgment,  we  learn,  shall  be  absolutely 
universal — universal  alike  as  regards  the  persons  brought 
into  it,  and  the  matter  included  in  its  survey.  It  will  be 
minute,  searching,  exhaustive,  yet  most  just,  for  God  is 
no  respecter  of  persons  (Acts  x.  34).  Yet  in  the  case  of 
the  righteous,  it  will  be  a  saving  judgment.  It  could  not 
be  so  if,  like  others,  these  stood  or  fell  by  what  was 
written  of  their  own  deeds.  The  holiest  could  not  face 
the  All-Holy  on  these  terms  (Ps.  cxxx.  3).  But  the 
believer  appears  in  his  union  with  Christ,  with  his 
Saviour’s  blood  to  atone  and  his  Saviour’s  righteousness 
to  plead.  Hence  he  stands.  Another  book  than  that  of 
works  is  opened — “  the  book  of  life  ” — and  his  name  is 
written  there  (Rev.  xx.  12).  Even  in  the  believer’s  case, 
however,  works — the  evidence  of  his  faith — have  an 
important  bearing.  If  not  the  ground  of  his  standing, 
they  are  yet  the  rule  of  his  reward  (Matt.  xxv.  20-23  ; 
2  Tim.  iv.  7,  &c.). 

One  solemn  fact  which  deserves  attention  in  its  bearing 
on  what  is  called  “  second  probation  ”  is  that,  in  every 
representation  of  the  judgment  which  we  possess,  the 
judgment  proceeds  on  the  record  of  the  present  life — on 
the  basis  of  “the  deeds  done  in  the  body”  (2  Cor.  v.  10). 
The  whole  state  after  death  is  regarded  as  one  of  “  judg¬ 
ment  ”  (Heb.  ix.  27),  and  no  suggestion  is  ever  made  of 
that  state  being  essentially  altered  by  anything  that  takes 
place,  or  can  take  place,  beyond  death.  Every  ray  of 
warning,  remonstrance,  appeal,  promise,  in  the  Gospel,  is 
concentrated  in  the  present.  “  Behold,  now  is  the  accept¬ 
able  time ;  behold,  now  is  the  day  of  salvation  ”  (2  Cor. 
vi.  2). 


178 


Eternity  and  its  Issues 

The  other  great  fact  that  arrests  us  in  regard  to  the 
judgment  is  that  its  sentence  is  definitive .  The  stamp  of 
finality  is  on  it  (Rev.  xxii.  n).  There  is  not  the  faintest 
hint  in  the  Scripture  anywhere  of  the  reversal  of  its 
decisions.  As  the  man  leaves  the  judgment  seat,  so  is 
his  state  and  place  in  eternity. 

VI. 

With  this  word  eternity  I  close  these  studies.  I  know 
the  dark  and  difficult  problems  which  the  word  opens  up, 
for  which  I  can  profess  to  offer  no  satisfying  solution  :  the 
doom  of  the  unsaved  who  have  rejected  Christ ;  the  lot  of 
the  millions  of  the  heathen  who  have  never  heard  of  Him; 
the  awful  meaning  of  such  words  as  “destruction,”  “the 
second  death,”  “fire  unquenchable”  (Matt.  iii.  12;  xiii. 
44  ;  xxv.  41,  46;  2  Thess.  i.  9;  Rev.  xx.  14,  15).  What¬ 
ever  the  solution  of  these  mysteries  which  God  holds  in 
His  own  hands,  I  feel  persuaded  that  the  solution  means 
neither  universal  salvation  nor  yet  the  extinction  of  being 
for  the  lost.  The  continued  existence  of  the  unsaved  is 
implied  even  in  the  passages  that  tell  of  the  doom  that 
falls  upon  them  at  the  judgment.  They  “go  away”  into 
that  doom  (Matt.  xxv.  46).  These  two  things  only  I 
would  venture  to  say.  (1)  We  may  be  absolutely  certain 
that  the  mercy  of  God  will  reach  as  far  as  ever  it  is  pos¬ 
sible  for  it  to  reach  ;  and  (2)  there  will  be  no  lack  of 
discrimination  in  the  judgment.  Even  within  the  circle 
of  those  who  are  grouped  as  the  unsaved,  there  will  be 
gradations  of  penalty — the  “  few  stripes  ”  and  the  “  many 
stripes  ”  (Luke  xii.  46,  47).  Jesus  says  it  will  be  “  more 
tolerable”  for  some  than  for  others  in  the  day  of  judg¬ 
ment  (Matt  xi.  20-24).  This  again  implies  continued 
existence.  The  heaviest  condemnation  falls  on  those  who, 
having  had  the  light,  have  loved  the  darkness  rather  than 
the  light,  their  deeds  being  evil  (John  iii.  19). 

179 


Side-Lights  on  Christian  Doctrine 

There  the  mystery  must  be  left.  We  can  bless  God 
that  this  dark  side  of  the  picture  of  eternity  is  not  the 
only  or  even  the  principal  one — that  the  vision  of  eternity 
which  chiefly  fills  the  Scriptures  is  that  of  the  everlasting 
life  of  blessedness  and  glory  of  the  good.  For  the 
redeemed  in  Christ  there  is  no  cloud  of  sadness,  but 
felicity  in  both  soul  and  body  for  evermore.  Holiness 
and  joy  are  perfected.  “  And  there  shall  be  no  curse  any 
more ;  and  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  shall  be 
therein ;  and  His  servants  shall  serve  ;  and  they  shall  see 
His  face ;  and  His  name  shall  be  in  their  foreheads  ” 
(Rev.  xxii.  3,  4).  In  Christ’s  simpler  words:  “Then 
shall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  Kingdom 
of  their  Father  ”  (Matt.  xiii.  43). 

Yet  even  in  this  glory,  as  said  before,  there  are  degrees, 
and  those  who  serve  Christ  most  faithfully  in  His  king¬ 
dom  here — the  most  loving,  patient,  prayerful,  self- 
sacrificing,  diligent,  earnest  in  saving  others — are  the 
highest  there.  “  Hold  fast  that  which  thou  hast,  that  no 
one  take  thy  crown.” 


180 


Index  of  Subjects 


Absolute,  God  as,  n,  2\ff. 

Adoption,  its  nature,  157^.  ;  relation  to  justification,  157;  to 
regeneration,  158. 

Advent,  Second,  difficulties  regarding,  165^,17377:;  delay  in,  165-6, 
169-70  ;  analogy  of  O.T.  prophecy,  166,  1697?./  time  of  unknown, 
167  ;  events  preceding,  168;  conditionality  of,  169-70;  Christ’s 
sayings  on,  171-2  ;  relation  to  millennium,  173-4. 

Agnosticism,  11. 

Atheism,  8,  14,  58. 

Attributes,  of  God,  meaning  of,  24  ;  division  of,  24  ;  belonging  to  God 
as  absolute,  243^  ;  as  Personal,  27 ff.  ;  specific  attributes — 
natural,  29/.  ;  moral,  13-14,  317^ 

Atonement,  124^.  ;  aversion  to  doctrine,  126-7  ;  presuppositions  of, 
127-8  ;  in  O.T.,  129^  ;  in  N.T,,  1317^  ;  in  Gospels,  132-3  ;  fact 
and  theory  in,  133-4;  problem  of,  134-5  ;  modern  theories  of,  136-7 
relation  to  guilt  and  condemnation,  137  ;  elements  in,  138-9. 

Creation,  $$ff.  ;  interest  of  religion  in,  56;  uniqueness  of  Biblical 
doctrine,  5877'. ;  non-Biblical  views  of,  58-9  ;  truths  implied  in, 
60-2  ;  relation  to  science,  biff.  ;  to  evolution,  64-5. 

Christ,  Jesus,  as  Redeemer,  1097^ ;  divinity  of,  11537. ;  incarna¬ 

tion  of,  I3ff.  ;  divine  and  human  in,  1143^  mystery  of  Person  of, 
H7ff ;  Kenotic  theories  of,  11837.;  earthly  limitations  of,  H9ff; 
freedom  from  error  of,  120-1. 

“  Christian  Science,”  59-60. 

Deism,  56. 

Doctrine,  prejudice  against,  3,  4  ;  place  of,  5  ;  relation  to  “dogma’ 
and  “  theology,”  ff. 

Dogma,  nature  of,  5. 

181 


Index  of  Subjects 


Election,  34. 

Eternity,  of  God,  24,  25-6  ;  human  destiny  in,  179-S0. 

Evolution,  and  creation,  64-5  ;  and  man,  Soff,  85^  94. 

Faith,  Saving,  143,  152-3;  relation  to  repentance,  153-4. 

Freedom,  of  God,  24,  27-8  ;  of  man,  30-1. 

Foreknowledge,  of  God,  30,  67/. 

God,  Christian  view  of,  Zff.  ;  evidence  for,  12 ft.  ;  O.T.  view  of,  15; 
teaching  of  Jesus  on,  15,  16;  Fatherhood  of,  16,  85-6,  157-9  ; 
Trinity  of,  16,  yjff.  [see  Trinity]  ;  names  and  attributes  of,  21 ff. 
[see  Attributes]. 

Holiness,  of  God,  31  ;  attributes  involved  in,  32^. 

Holy  Spirit,  in  Trinity,  16,  37,  43-4,  48  ;  in  salvation,  143^  ; 

Agent  in  regeneration,  144^ 

Image  of  God,  in  man,  78#,,  93. 

Immutability,  of  God,  26. 

Infinity,  of  God,  10,  24,  26. 

Judgment,  Last,  177-8  ;  its  finality,  179. 

Justification,  its  nature,  155^.  ;  wrong  views  of,  155. 

Kenotic  theories,  118#. 

Love  of  God,  33  ;  relation  to  Trinity,  17,  37,  46  ;  end  ot  creation,  50. 

Man,  place  in  creation,  76-7  ;  made  in  God’s  image,  78/!  ;  distinction 
from  animals,  Soff. ;  a  compound  being,  82^. ;  original  condition 
of,  84^;  relation  to  evolution,  80-1,  85^.;  antiquity  of  88-9; 
moral  state  of  (see  Sin)  ;  destiny  of,  179-80. 

Names,  of  God,  21#. 

Nature,  revelation  in,  i2ff\  a.  creation,  60-1 ;  laws  of,  67^. 

Organic  constitution  of  race,  100-1,  109-11. 

Omnipresence,  of  God,  29. 

Omniscience,  of  God,  29^. 

Omnipotence,  of  God,  31. 


182 


Index  of  Subjects 

Pantheism,  g,  59-60. 

Personality,  of  God,  6,  24  ;  relation  to  infinitude,  27-8. 

Providence,  of  God,  66^.  ;  in  Scripture,  66  ;  relation  to  natural  law, 
67 ;  general  and  special,  67/i ;  relation  to  freedom,  yof. ;  to 
sin,  71. 

Purpose,  of  God,  its  nature,  49  ;  how  executed,  50  ;  end  of,  50-1. 

Redemption,  need  of,  10377: ;  possibility  of,  no^i ;  completeness  of, 
1037^;  nature  of,  125^  [see  Atonement] ;  of  whole  personality, 
175-6. 

Regeneration,  need  of,  144-6  ;  nature  of,  144-5  ;  a  work  of  God’s 
Spirit,  144^-  ;  not  magical,  147  ;  through  the  Word,  147-8  ; 
psychology  of,  14877: ;  awakening,  149;  conviction,  150; 

enlightenment,  150-1  ;  renewal  of  will,  151-2. 

Repentance,  150,  153;  relation  to  faith,  153-4. 

Resurrection,  involved  in  redemption,  175-6  ;  mistakes  regarding, 
176  ;  true  nature  of,  176-7. 

Revelation,  in  nature,  12  ;  supernatural,  4,  11  ;  in  Bible,  7,  12,  14^. 

Righteousness,  of  God,  32-3. 

Sacrifice,  in  O.T.,  129-30. 

Sanctification,  nature  of,  159/f.  ;  human  side  of,  159-60;  standard 
of,  161. 

Self-existence,  of  God,  24-5. 

Sin,  negation  of  good,  94 ;  principle  of  in  egoism,  9477.  ;  depraving 
effects  of,  96/*.  ;  forms  of,  95  ;  result  of  “  fall,”  97/. ;  superhuman 
origin  of,  ggf-  ;  racial  effects  of,  100-1  ;  guilt  of,  101-2  ;  penalties 
of,  102-3  5  need  of  redemption  from,  103  ;  conviction  of,  149-50, 

.  .I53’ 

Spirituality,  of  God,  27. 

Sovereignty,  of  God,  24. 

Trinity,  of  God,  16,  17,  yjff.  ;  doctrine  of  revelation,  16,  3877*. ; 
involved  in  love  and  Fatherhood,  17,  37,  46;  in  formula  of 
baptism,  397?%  41;  in  O.T.,  42-3;  in  N.T.,  41-2;  value  of 
doctrine,  44 ff.  ;  “  Persons  ”  in,  47^. 

Theology,  what  it  is,  ;  need  of,  7 ;  in  doctrine  of  God,  Sjf. 

Union  with  Christ,  how  effected,  143^.,  152. 

Unitarianism,  37,  44,  1 12-13,  115. 


